"There's a Sort of Impish Quality to his Thinking"

The Philosophy of Art & Aesthetics.

Moderator: e_dog

Post Reply
User avatar
e_dog
Posts: 2764
Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 2:02 pm
Location: Knowhere, Pun-jab

"There's a Sort of Impish Quality to his Thinking"

Post by e_dog » November 24th, 2007, 6:23 am

Heres a treat for T-kopf, who i recall's a fan of old Bertie.

Bertrand Russell: logician, philosopher, psychopath.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YR4_wjjYe5A


the thread-title:
not sure who said that comment about Bert, though.
I don't think 'Therefore, I am.' Therefore, I am.

Totenkopf

Post by Totenkopf » November 24th, 2007, 8:45 pm

Yes to most leftists intoxicated with PoMo, Russell has, because of a few hawkish statements in the 50s, become synonymous with totalitarianism, and the massive atrocities of Stalin and Mao are then sort of pushed to the side. So Russell's work against both fascism and communism (and US involvement in Nam) may also be ignored, and one can happily affirm the marxist-machiavellian tradition, since the "loyal opposition" obviously were nazis too, according to the PoMo sentimentalists.

There's quite a bit of writing on this issue. Russell merely argued for a sort of "forcing the hand" policy for a few years. He never said outright that the US and allies should bomb Russia; he said threaten an invasion to get them to come to the table. Perhaps a bit rash, but hardly Mein Kampf (or a Stalinist 20 year plan). Besides, reports indicate Stalin and his cronies were quite ready to go to war against the West; the Cuba missile crisis also showed that.

Bertrand Russell was not perfect. But he never ordered--and carried out--- the deaths of 1000s as VI Lenin or Stalin did.

User avatar
e_dog
Posts: 2764
Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 2:02 pm
Location: Knowhere, Pun-jab

Post by e_dog » November 24th, 2007, 9:07 pm

and if the nobvle West had followed his advice: the strategy of forcing the hand? How many thousands, or millions, woulda died in a WWIII?

Cuba Missile Crisis only points to the idiotic nature of the US policy with Cuba which produced the situation. Our plans for a missile shield in Europe right now seems awful like it, not to mention the missiles we had in Europe at the time of the Cuban missile crisis. Western double standards premised on Imperial power, assumed legitimacy.

Bertie Russell, though, sounds like today's neo-con; preemptive measures, gotta git Iran for they git US....

btw, there are no pro-Stalinist postmodernists ... PoMo if it is anything is a rejection of communist party politics, as a consequence of the faulty equation of stalinism with communism. Stalin was, of course, an unwitting stooge of the Imperialists enabling the triumph of capitalism.
I don't think 'Therefore, I am.' Therefore, I am.

Totenkopf

Post by Totenkopf » November 24th, 2007, 9:17 pm

Russell was no conservative, but a socialist, and pacifist until WWII. I don't worship the man, but he did have first hand knowledge of the soviets, and was not overly impressed with the bolsheviks.

I have read that Uncle Joe was quite close to giving the order to take Europe from the allies at the close of WWII, instead of just stopping with Berlin. And the soviets obtained a great deal of info. regarding atomic weapons from the nazis they captured (and enslaved).

"Forcing them to the table" does not at all equal arguing for an attack. I suggest you read a bit about the matter. And as Russell says in the youtube piece, the a-bombs (he made the statement like late 40s presumably) were not quite the h-bombs that were later developed. Maybe it was a faux-pas on the part of Russell. Maybe not. Russia has continued to develop nukes, and have new "birch trees" or something that can reach North Beach in probably under a half-hour.\

(No -pro-stalinist PoMos? Not sure on that. Ever hear of Zizek, who often quotes Stalin? We could use a few more Russells and less Zizeks [btw, Chomsky has said positive things about Russell, regardless of the supposed "first-strike" comment.)

User avatar
e_dog
Posts: 2764
Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 2:02 pm
Location: Knowhere, Pun-jab

Post by e_dog » November 25th, 2007, 9:40 pm

No -pro-stalinist PoMos? Not sure on that. Ever hear of Zizek, who often quotes Stalin? We could use a few more Russells and less Zizeks [btw, Chomsky has said positive things about Russell, regardless of the supposed "first-strike" comment.)
and Chomsky often quotes Goebells, or Rumsfeld, what of it? Hannah Arendt quotes Eichman.... Marx quotes Adam Smith, that make him a free marketeer?

what 'first-hand' knowledge did Russell have of Soviets? he was a Prisoner of the Brits, the Redcoats, not the Reds.

logical atomism = it is logical to use the atomic bomb?

seems like those measily atomic weapons were enuf to devastate Hiroshime, with out no h-bomb.
I don't think 'Therefore, I am.' Therefore, I am.

Totenkopf

Post by Totenkopf » November 26th, 2007, 10:11 pm

You haven't read much of Russell's bio, have yoo. Bertie travelled to soviet Russia, early 20s, with fabians, John Dewey also present methinx. BR actually met with shotcallah VI, at least for hours or so. Russell was also acquainted with Kropotkin, who the bolsheviki more or less had under house arrest, while they collected his supporters, and liquidated (stinkin' petite-booj-wah scum etc.) .

How 'bout some chat about like some PoMo idols who actually partied with Maoists? Or Sartre who had a rather comfy existence during Vichy time, and then later had no problem blessing the communists? And so on and so on. Heidegger, the idol of Derrida and Sartre, supported fascism, and he actually was a nazi and praised Hitler (and never really repented of that). Many academic marxists have no problem reading and quoting nazi Vati Heidegger, while detesting Russell, who consistently supported socialist aims, and who fought against the fascists in the 30s, and criticized the KKK and racism in the USA.

Russell for a few months (before the stalinists got the H-bomb) argued that the US and Brits should force the USSR to the table. He did not advocate outright bombing. Even if a faux-pas it does not detract from his other work in philosophy or politics. Any one who wrote "On Denoting" may be forgiven.

User avatar
jimboloco
Posts: 5797
Joined: November 29th, 2004, 11:48 am
Location: st pete, florita
Contact:

Post by jimboloco » November 27th, 2007, 1:57 pm

wally wants to know what or who is a PoMo?
[color=darkcyan]i'm on a survival mission
yo ho ho an a bottle of rum om[/color]

User avatar
e_dog
Posts: 2764
Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 2:02 pm
Location: Knowhere, Pun-jab

Post by e_dog » November 28th, 2007, 10:15 pm

PoMo =

Pork Money

=

Political Monkeybuziness

=

Porridge. More?

=


Porno Montage


=

Post modern (= when a post has recently been added to a online thread or bulletin-bored)
I don't think 'Therefore, I am.' Therefore, I am.

Totenkopf

Post by Totenkopf » December 4th, 2007, 4:04 pm

PoMo as shorthand for postmodernist, wally. Postmodernists (google college might help too) were a group of leftist intellectuals, mostly parisian sorts, who didn't care for western culture, or rationality, or capitalism. They follow Marxism and Freud, with other influences, even from somewhat rightist thinkers such as Heidegger and Hegel. Derrida is one PoMo, as was Foocault. ( e-pup could provide more assistance).

PoMo thus itself seems a bit contradictory, like most anti-rationalist programmes. And I doubt even Herr Doktor Heidegger woulda approved (he didn't approve of JP Fartre, either, did he). Heidegger was not opposed to Western culture anyway: he wrote on "Occidental Dasein." He was opposed perhaps to positivism and reductionism (and to marxism), but was greatly influenced by the greeks for one.

Since this thread was started in honor of Bertrand Russell, it might be recalled that Bertie consistently criticized the anti-rationalist programme, whether Hegel , stalinist-marxism, or Nietzsche. Russell broke with the Hegelian quacks early on; he realized that Hegelian metaphysics (ie dialectic) was sort of the father of various monstrous offspring, such as communism and fascism. Postmodernism then is sort of a later descendant, not quite as horrifying as the totalitarian beasts that preceded it.............

Post Reply

Return to “The Anti-Academy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests