Hancock and Bertrand Russell
- 3 years ago
Scene showing Tony Hancock grappling with Bertrand Russell's book "Human Knowledge: its Scope and Limits", and throwing it aside when he can make nothing of it.
Here is the dialogue of what Hancock says:
Tony Hancock: “Yes, it’s a hard graft for we intellectuals these days. Never mind, let’s have a quick go at Bertrand Russell. Let’s go. [reaches for the book] ‘Human Knowledge: Its Limits and Scope’ by Bertrand Russell, Introduction. [quizzical pause while he grimaces and makes faces as he reads the book and looks at the dictionary] If that’s what they mean why don’t they say so. Oh, I don’t what he’s talking about. The limits and scope of human knowledge. Well, we’ve soon found out my limits, haven’t we! Three sentences! Well, I should know what he’s talking about. He’s a human being the same as me, using words, English words available to us all! Now, concentrate. [Further pause while he makes faces, mouths words and looks at the dictionary again] No, it’s him. He’s a rotten writer. A good writer should be able to put down his thoughts in the simplest terms understandable to everybody. It’s him. He’s a bad writer. I’m not going to waste my time reading it. [Throws down the book and picks up another one] Ah, that’s more like it. ‘Lady don’t fall backwards’, that’s more like it. [He smiles as he settles down to read the book]”
Here are the three sentences from the Introduction of the book mentioned by Hancock: “The central purpose of this book is to examine the relation between individual experience and the general body of scientific knowledge. It is taken for granted that scientific knowledge, in its broad outlines, is to be accepted. Scepticism, while logically impeccable, is psychologically impossible, and there is an element of frivolous insincerity in any philosophy which pretends to accept it.” (Op.cit. p. 9).
Here is the dialogue of what Hancock says:
Tony Hancock: “Yes, it’s a hard graft for we intellectuals these days. Never mind, let’s have a quick go at Bertrand Russell. Let’s go. [reaches for the book] ‘Human Knowledge: Its Limits and Scope’ by Bertrand Russell, Introduction. [quizzical pause while he grimaces and makes faces as he reads the book and looks at the dictionary] If that’s what they mean why don’t they say so. Oh, I don’t what he’s talking about. The limits and scope of human knowledge. Well, we’ve soon found out my limits, haven’t we! Three sentences! Well, I should know what he’s talking about. He’s a human being the same as me, using words, English words available to us all! Now, concentrate. [Further pause while he makes faces, mouths words and looks at the dictionary again] No, it’s him. He’s a rotten writer. A good writer should be able to put down his thoughts in the simplest terms understandable to everybody. It’s him. He’s a bad writer. I’m not going to waste my time reading it. [Throws down the book and picks up another one] Ah, that’s more like it. ‘Lady don’t fall backwards’, that’s more like it. [He smiles as he settles down to read the book]”
Here are the three sentences from the Introduction of the book mentioned by Hancock: “The central purpose of this book is to examine the relation between individual experience and the general body of scientific knowledge. It is taken for granted that scientific knowledge, in its broad outlines, is to be accepted. Scepticism, while logically impeccable, is psychologically impossible, and there is an element of frivolous insincerity in any philosophy which pretends to accept it.” (Op.cit. p. 9).