Most overrated philosopher - Russell

I have no respect for Bertrand Russell: his ideas were not at all new yet he was a very arrogant man. All of his ideas, pertaining to mathematics and philosophy, could not have been put forth without Wittgenstein, Whitehead, or Moore, in which Wittgenstein single-handedly created the Analytical school of philosophy and Russell would have to work way more harder to come on par with Wittgenstein. At the same time, Russell enjoyed the fame that far exceeded all of the three, and he had a great penchant showing off how smarter he was than others, with an off-putting pretension and egotism.

The infamous Russell's teapot was an example of such arrogance and intellectual sloppiness: if another philosopher is making that argument, he is entitled to do so, but not Russell: Russell was an advocate of the mathematical rigor of Analytical school, yet the teapot argument has no such rigor and showed no intellectual sophistication. As a learned man he could have better arguments with formal logic yet he chose not to, or, if he was not as intelligent as other people think he was, he might not be able to have any better arguments.

 

You prefer the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Russell was famous because he was provocative,accessible and addressed issues that many ordinary folks had questions about but were getting traditional answers from the churches and incomprehensible symbols, math and mutterings from the likes of Wittgenstein et al. Russell's counterpart today is Richard Dawkins, who has even recycled some of the same material and has an ego and arrogance to match. Not the world's greatest scientist or original thinker, but important in his niche. The Teapot (and the Spaghetti monster) made a point that would be difficult and pointless to convey by formal logic. Formal logic won't cut it with most readers.

 

I agree that Russell's fame is due at least in part to things like his involvement in CND. Also, he was rather good at summarizing and explaining philosophies of the past ( as in his History of Western Philosophy).
I think he was a bit above Dawkins though, who isn't really a philosopoher at all but a scientist.

 

I'm not really seeing the point of this. Why does it matter more whether someone is "over-rated" than whether they're right?

Pretty much all popular philosophers tailor their work to their readership. That's why they're popular. I do feel that, if a comparison must be made, Russell preserved the integrity of his arguments in the popular domain far better than Dawkins has.