The Philosophy of Art & Aesthetics.

Moderator: e_dog

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

Post by e_dog » April 15th, 2008, 11:57 pm

philistines -- a.k.a positivists -- don't get Witt.

too subtle, fine w(h)ine; best to stick with the swill to get drunk.wor-ship scienz. Reap the capitalistick bennyfits.
I don't think 'Therefore, I am.' Therefore, I am.


Post by Totenkopf » April 16th, 2008, 11:42 pm

Witt's the ex-engineer was the philistine--he didn't know jack about history or much of metaphysics either. And what's up with "meaning as use"? Sounds pretty philistinish: so thieves jargon will do as well as Coleridge. Witt was mad too (read Witt Poker), as in bad craziness. Personally I think he wanted to join the fascists (he fought for prussians in WWI), but having at least 1/2 jewish ancestry, he would never have made it.

I did not claim to idolize Russell, anyway: yr reading too much for his character, when's it's really a fairly traditional point, and one might even historicist. Russell protested Nam btw, and even made some interesting comments against the israelis. So he was a bit of an arrogant brit: hardly caused as much misery as communists or fascists did.

What's more interesting is the reaction Russell now produces in the left (and some rightist xtians); you'd think he was like the equal of Mao or something (now there's some real tyranny). He ain't. Really, in pomo-land, I think gents like Mao and Stalin are secretly coveted; as are even some fascists. They get the job done: what's a few million liquidated in the name of prole revolution? Ah yeah. Commies are sexxxy-- at least those with par-tay membership.

Post Reply

Return to “The Anti-Academy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest