Mao and Kissinger discuss Hegel

[heiss93]

Interesting talk between Mao and Kissinger on Hegel and Indian philosophy
http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76v18/d58

Chairman Mao: That is so. You are now freer than before.
The Secretary: Much more.
Chairman Mao: And the philosopher of your motherland, Hegel, has said—I don't know whether it is the correct English translation—” freedom means the knowledge of necessity.”
The Secretary: Yes.
Chairman Mao: Do you pay attention or not to one of the subjects of Hegel's philosophy, that is, the unity of opposites?
The Secretary: Very much. I was much influenced by Hegel in my philosophic thinking.
Chairman Mao: Both Hegel and Feuerbach, who came a little later after him. They were both great thinkers. And Marxism came partially from them. They were predecessors of Marx. If it were not for Hegel and Feuerbach, there would not be Marxism.
The Secretary: Yes. Marx reversed the tendency of Hegel, but he adopted the basic theory.
Chairman Mao: What kind of doctor are you? Are you a doctor of philosophy?
The Secretary: Yes (laughter).
Chairman Mao: Yes, well, then won't you give me a lecture?
The Secretary: I think the Chairman knows much more philosophy than I. And he has written profoundly about philosophy. I used to shock my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, by assigning essays from your collected works, in my courses in the 1960s at Harvard.
Chairman Mao: I, myself, am not satisfied with myself. The main thing is that I don't understand foreign languages and, therefore, I am unable to read books of Germans or Englishmen or Americans.
The Secretary: I can't read German in its original form. I must translate into English, because it is too complicated in its original form. This is quite true. Some of the points of Hegel—quite seriously—I understand better in English than German, even though German is my mother language.
Prime Minister Chou: Because of the intricate structure of the German grammar, it sometimes gets misinterpreted if one doesn't understand the grammar correctly. Therefore, it's not easy to understand the German language and especially the reasoning of various works.
Chairman Mao: (To Prime Minister Chou) Don't you know some German?
Prime Minister Chou: I learned in my youth; now I've forgotten it.
The Secretary: German sentences are long, and the grammar is involved. Therefore, it's easier to understand English than German. One of the characteristics of the German language…
Prime Minister Chou: Yesterday, a few of those who know German were joking together that German sentences are so long in length that they are quite a few pages, and one does not understand the sentences until you find the final verb, and the verb is at the very end. That, of course, is exaggerated. One sentence does not take several pages.
Chairman Mao: Did you meet Kuo Mo-juo who understands German? Now we are discussing Hegel, and I give you an opinion.
The Secretary: I don't know the gentleman that the Chairman was mentioning.
Chairman Mao: He is a man who worships Confucius, but he is now a member of our Central Committee.
Let's go back to Hegel. In Hegel's history of philosophy, he mentioned Confucius who he showed great disrespect. He showed more respect for Laotze, but he showed the greatest respect for the philosophy of Indian Buddhism.
The Secretary: I don't quite agree with him (the Chairman) on that last point. That's a very passive philosophy.
Chairman Mao: And I also believe that that was not a correct way of saying. And this is not only true of Hegel.
The Secretary: There is a sentimental love affair between Western intellectuals and India based on a complete misreading of the Indian philosophy of life. Indian philosophy was never meant to have a practical application.
Chairman Mao: It's just a bunch of empty words.
The Secretary: For Gandhi, nonviolence wasn't a philosophic principle, but because he thought the British were too moralistic and sentimental to use violence against. They are nonsentimental people. For Gandhi it was a revolutionary tactic, not an ethical principle.
Chairman Mao: And he himself would spin his own wool and drink goat's milk.
The Secretary: But it was essentially a tactical device for him.
Chairman Mao: And the influence of Gandhi's doctrine on the Indian people was to induce them into nonresistance.
The Secretary: Partly, but also given the character and diversity of the English people, it was only a way to conduct the struggle against the British. So I think Gandhi deserves credit of having won independence against the British.
Chairman Mao: India did not win independence. If it did not attach itself to Britain, it attaches itself to the Soviet Union. And more than one-half of their economy depends on you. Did you not mention during your briefings that India owes ten billion dollars in debt to the U.S., or was that all debts?

[RED DAVE]

Why does this remind me of Nixon and Kissinger discussing praying during Watergate?

RED DAVE

[LJJW]

Interesting to see two members of the ruling-class point out how Hegel influenced them.

I would post a link to elsewhere on RevLeft where this has been discussed but I don't have enough posts to publish links yet.

L.

[Dean]

Interesting to see two members of the ruling-class point out how Hegel influenced them.

I would post a link to elsewhere on RevLeft where this has been discussed but I don't have enough posts to publish links yet.

L.

Why does this sound so familiar...?

[Luís Henrique]

Interesting to see two members of the ruling-class point out how Hegel influenced them.

Lots of philosophers have influenced lots of ruling class politicians. Some philosophers were even members of ruling class clubs such as the Cambridge Apostles.

Luís Henrique

[LJJW]

Dean posted this:


Why does this sound so familiar...?

I hope it does. Indeed, I'd be surprised if it didn't. Rosa and I have been collaborating for over 25 years; I even helped her write some of her essays, as I mentioned on the Introduction page. We see eye to eye on most things in philosophy, although she is far more combative than I am, and pushes things much further than I would! :)

By the way, before she went off on holiday, Rosa asked me to ask you: if her thread 'anti-dialectics made easy' has been unstickied, why has "Bob the Builder's" thread "Marxist Philosophy", which he set up in answer to Rosa's thread, not also been unstickied?

At the very least, others should be allowed to post in that thread to show there is an alternative.

Luis then added:


Lots of philosophers have influenced lots of ruling class politicians. Some philosophers were even members of ruling class clubs such as the Cambridge Apostles.

Indeed, and while there they managed to show that all of traditional philosophy is nonsensical, and thus of no use to anyone, least of all the ruling class -- or even leftists enamoured of their theories, like Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Trotsky (and, alas, one or two here).

As Rosa demonstrated in an earlier thread. I cannot post the link yet, but it's over the next page in this section.

[Rjevan]

By the way, before she went off on holiday, Rosa asked me to ask you: if her thread 'anti-dialectics made easy' has been unstickied, why has "Bob the Builder's" thread "Marxist Philosophy", which he set up in answer to Rosa's thread, not also been unstickied?

At the very least, others should be allowed to post in that thread to show there is an alternative.
The differences between both threads, the reasons for (un-)stickying them and their purposes have been explained here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectics-topic-stickied-t155524/index.html

[Luís Henrique]

although she is far more combative than I am, and pushes things much further than I would! :)

Hope so. Really, to "fight against irrationality in the left" by behaving in an irrational way cannot be productive.


By the way, before she went off on holiday, Rosa asked me to ask you: if her thread 'anti-dialectics made easy' has been unstickied, why has "Bob the Builder's" thread "Marxist Philosophy", which he set up in answer to Rosa's thread, not also been unstickied?I don't know. But it doesn't strike me as absurd. Ms Lichtenstein's thread was a discussion about her own theories; "Bob the Builder's thread" is a place to post resources for Marxist philosophy.


At the very least, others should be allowed to post in that thread to show there is an alternative.The purpose of that thread is not to discuss philosophy, but merely to point to pages (or off-line sources) that inform about Marxist philosphy. And this is the reason it is locked: so that it only contains posts listing such resources, and avoid them getting invisible among piles of pro- and con- posts of all kinds.


Luis then added:Thank you very much for referring to me by my name. This common courtesy is something that Ms Lichtenstein was never able to do, all the time she spent (or wasted) here.


Indeed, and while there they managed to show that all of traditional philosophy is nonsensical, and thus of no use to anyone, least of all the ruling class -- or even leftists enamoured of their theories, like Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Trotsky (and, alas, one or two here).
Point being, the peculiarities of the lives of philosophers cannot be used to prove or disprove the validity of their thoughts.

It is not a secret that Hegel was a reactionary man, and so it shouldn't come as a surprise that he influenced the thought of reactionary politicians (or that those would say that when trying to behave amicably to each others). It shouldn't also be a secret that Wittgenstein was socially reactionary, and a mystical man (he also was certainly quite apolitical and even extremely un-activist, but the fact that he never made a point of proselitising his social, political, and economic views doesn't detract from the fact that such views, in the rare ocasion he uttered them, were right from the centre). Some people seem to be manufacturing an alternative biography for Wittgenstein, in which he is described as someone with leftist sympathies (because, it seems, he was friends with Piero Sraffa, and because he once had a fantasy of living in the Soviet Union), but this is foolish, and unnecessary. If his views on logic and language can be profitably used by the left, it is because of such views on themselves, not because of some fantastic misunderstanding of his life.

But then same goes for Hegel, or Plato, or Teillard de Chardin, or Freud, or Comte, or whomever else. You can't prove that their ideas are noxious by showing that they had no sympathies for the left, or that their ideas have been used by right wingers. Otherwise, what would we think of Nietzsche, who the Nazis contorted into a precursor of theirs?

Luís Henrique

[blake 3:17]

Thanks so much for this. Kissinger played an absolutely key role in establishing US relations with Communist China. Mao, Chou En Lai, Nixon and Kissibger clearly saw themselves as part of History.

[Hiero]

Interesting point about Ghandi, is it true? This was a tactical approach towards defeating the British not a philosophical lifestyle?

[Nehru]

Interesting point about Ghandi, is it true? This was a tactical approach towards defeating the British not a philosophical lifestyle?

Not true. Gandhi was nonviolent by principle. He was impressed by Tolstoy's work "The kingdom of God is within you" plus he interpreted even a 'war text' like gita (Hindu scripture) to emphasize nonviolence. Not to mention he loved the Sermon on the Mount and quoted it often. He was a genuine peace-lover, a saint, so his ahimsa wasn't just a tactical move.

[Luís Henrique]

The British Wittgenstein Society (http://www.editor.net/BWS/) is sponsored by Shell.

Should I be surprised about this?

Should I use it as an argument against Wittgenstein?

Luís Henrique

[Crux]

Should I be surprised about this?

Should I use it as an argument against Wittgenstein?

Luís Henrique
Not to mention his connection to Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein#Jewish_background_and_Hitler).

[A Marxist Historian]

I am three-dotting out much of this to focus on what I consider of interest, hope nobody minds. And three-dotting out the comments on Wittgenstein, as I am unfamiliar with Wittgenstein and have nothing useful to say on the matter. However:


...
It is not a secret that Hegel was a reactionary man, and so it shouldn't come as a surprise that he influenced the thought of reactionary politicians (or that those would say that when trying to behave amicably to each others)....

This is really not the case at all. Hegel was a liberal and an enthusiast for the French Revolution, and for that matter for the Napoleonic occupation of his native Prussia, something which required a certain courage, though he was careful how he expressed it. As he was an exceedingly bourgeois liberal, he was quite loyal to the Prussian monarchy in his last years, typical for liberals.


But then same goes for Hegel, or Plato, or Teillard de Chardin, or Freud, or Comte, or whomever else. You can't prove that their ideas are noxious by showing that they had no sympathies for the left, or that their ideas have been used by right wingers. Otherwise, what would we think of Nietzsche, who the Nazis contorted into a precursor of theirs?

Luís Henrique

Your general point is quite correct, but Nietsche was a reactionary of the worst sort. The only distortion the Nazis imposed on his ideas was their spreading the notion that he was an anti-Semite and a German nationalist.

Nietszche would have been much more comfortable with Mussolini than with Hitler, though he likely would have thought Mussolini insufficiently bloodthirsty.

Nietzsche was very serious in his belief that the "ubermenschen" should rule over the "untermenschen," enslaving or exterminating them as they preferred. Our "Beyond Good and Evil" man, with his hatred of Christianity, would certainly have had no moral objections to the Holocaust, it is merely that he would have thought that the wrong people were sent to the gas chambers. His letters make this quite clear.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Not to mention his connection to Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein#Jewish_background_and_Hitler).

A rather misleading statement. Attending the same high school as Hitler proves nothing about anything, especially since it seems they didn't know each other.

What is amazing about this Wikipedia entry is how little light it sheds on his political beliefs and attitudes to the tumultuous political and social events of his lifetime, despite its considerable length.

Well, Wikipedia is usually crap anyway.

-M.H.-

[agnixie]

I am three-dotting out much of this to focus on what I consider of interest, hope nobody minds. And three-dotting out the comments on Wittgenstein, as I am unfamiliar with Wittgenstein and have nothing useful to say on the matter. However:



This is really not the case at all. Hegel was a liberal and an enthusiast for the French Revolution, and for that matter for the Napoleonic occupation of his native Prussia, something which required a certain courage, though he was careful how he expressed it. As he was an exceedingly bourgeois liberal, he was quite loyal to the Prussian monarchy in his last years, typical for liberals.



Your general point is quite correct, but Nietsche was a reactionary of the worst sort. The only distortion the Nazis imposed on his ideas was their spreading the notion that he was an anti-Semite and a German nationalist.

Nietszche would have been much more comfortable with Mussolini than with Hitler, though he likely would have thought Mussolini insufficiently bloodthirsty.

Nietzsche was very serious in his belief that the "ubermenschen" should rule over the "untermenschen," enslaving or exterminating them as they preferred. Our "Beyond Good and Evil" man, with his hatred of Christianity, would certainly have had no moral objections to the Holocaust, it is merely that he would have thought that the wrong people were sent to the gas chambers. His letters make this quite clear.

-M.H.-

Nietszche was as a general rule opposed to violent imposition of ideas, and considered nationalism and militarism perfectly abhorrent, having been drafted at the beginning of the franco-prussian war.

This is a completely ridiculous reading of the conception of the ubermensch as found in Nietzsche, which has fuck all to do with the kind of superiority you imply. I also fail to see how hatred of christianity means anything; christianity is an annoying death cult when at its worst, and imposed its ideas worldwide by the sword - there is a very good case to be made that christian charity is an ideal used to keep people ignorant and dependent and feeds reaction far more than it actually helps. Hitler used the church to his advantage as much as he could and insisted he was a good catholic, and so did most fascist leaders, even Mussolini who still kept a sliver of his socialist days agnosticism.

Is your only source on Nietzsche a drunken misreading of the cliff notes to Adorno?

[caramelpence]

This is really not the case at all. Hegel was a liberal and an enthusiast for the French Revolution, and for that matter for the Napoleonic occupation of his native Prussia, something which required a certain courage, though he was careful how he expressed it. As he was an exceedingly bourgeois liberal, he was quite loyal to the Prussian monarchy in his last years, typical for liberals.

Right on. The view that Hegel was some kind of supporter of Prussian absolutism or an official philosopher is characteristic primarily of older scholarship on Hegel and is based mainly on the assumption that his vision of ethical life was essentially derived from the actual institutions of 19th century Prussia - not only is that particular point not true, in that it ignores the fact that Prussia had no national system of representation, whereas ethical life was said to embody an assembly of corporations, for example, it also ignores Hegel's critical political essays like The German Constitution (1802), as well as Hegel's close personal and intellectual associations with reformist liberals like Stein and Hardenberg.

[scarletghoul]

Wow what an interesting thing to read. Would be cool if more of Maos philosophical discussions were made available

[BostonCharlie]

The Secretary: I think the Chairman knows much more philosophy than I. And he has written profoundly about philosophy. I used to shock my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, by assigning essays from your collected works, in my courses in the 1960s at Harvard.

One must give it to the war criminal Kissinger, he was a most accomplished suck-up. :laugh:

[Kiev Communard]

This is really not the case at all. Hegel was a liberal and an enthusiast for the French Revolution, and for that matter for the Napoleonic occupation of his native Prussia, something which required a certain courage, though he was careful how he expressed it. As he was an exceedingly bourgeois liberal, he was quite loyal to the Prussian monarchy in his last years, typical for liberals.

This point needs certain correction, as Hegel was clearly hostile to 1792-1799 regimes (the Convention and the Directory) and praised Napoleon, rather than the revolutionary figures themselves. To a certain extent he was close to Feuillaint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feuillant_(political_group)) faction of the French constitutional monarchists of 1789-1791 led by Antoine Barnave, whose political views (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Pierre_Joseph_Marie_Barnave#Political_View s)seem pretty close to Hegel's right-wing liberalism.



Your general point is quite correct, but Nietsche was a reactionary of the worst sort. The only distortion the Nazis imposed on his ideas was their spreading the notion that he was an anti-Semite and a German nationalist.

Nietszche would have been much more comfortable with Mussolini than with Hitler, though he likely would have thought Mussolini insufficiently bloodthirsty.

Nietzsche was very serious in his belief that the "ubermenschen" should rule over the "untermenschen," enslaving or exterminating them as they preferred. Our "Beyond Good and Evil" man, with his hatred of Christianity, would certainly have had no moral objections to the Holocaust, it is merely that he would have thought that the wrong people were sent to the gas chambers. His letters make this quite clear.

-M.H.-

Nietzsche seems to have been rather close to the "Objectivist" misanthropic "philosophy" of Ayn Rand and her followers in his political views (save for glorification of "productive" entrepreneurs, of course). The views of Spanish Falangists with their cult of the irrational and contempt for academic intellectuals would have also been attractive to Nietzsche, although their emphasis on political Catholicism might just as likely have irked him as the Randite irrational affection to each and every corporate shareholder/CEO.

[Luís Henrique]

A rather misleading statement. Attending the same high school as Hitler proves nothing about anything, especially since it seems they didn't know each other.

I don't think this was what Majakovskij was referring to. He probably had in mind the deal through which the Wittgensteins received mischling status, in exchange for their fortune in Switzerland and elsewhere abroad.


Well, Wikipedia is usually crap anyway.

Engrave these words in stone. Few words have ever been uttered that come so close to Absolute Truth.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

One must give it to the war criminal Kissinger, he was a most accomplished suck-up. :laugh:

It seems that bootlicking is addictive, to the point that after some time it no longer matters whose boots one is licking.

Luís Henrique

[scarletghoul]

Kissenger's a slimy bastard, though it is very interesting that he found Mao's political philosophy worth studying. I am also pretty sure that someone in the new tory government is very influenced by mao's ideas. so far david cameron has said power to the people, has talked about public sector employs being responsible for "serving the people", the big society idea is basically maoism for the rich, ideologically ..

[A Marxist Historian]

I don't think this was what Majakovskij was referring to. He probably had in mind the deal through which the Wittgensteins received mischling status, in exchange for their fortune in Switzerland and elsewhere abroad.



Engrave these words in stone. Few words have ever been uttered that come so close to Absolute Truth.

Luís Henrique

In the interests of theoretical precision, there is a Law of Wikipedia that has been formulated.

The truthfulness and accuracy of a Wikipedia entry is inversely proportional to the importance of the subject it covers.

I think criticizing Wittgenstein for saving the necks of himself and his family through spending large sums of money seems unfair. Being a mischling didn't mean that the Nazis liked you or gave you any privileges whatsoever, it just meant that they were less likely to kill you.

-M.H.-

[Luís Henrique]

In the interests of theoretical precision, there is a Law of Wikipedia that has been formulated.

The truthfulness and accuracy of a Wikipedia entry is inversely proportional to the importance of the subject it covers.

I would say, inversely proportional to the importance of the subject it covers, squared.


I think criticizing Wittgenstein for saving the necks of himself and his family through spending large sums of money seems unfair. Being a mischling didn't mean that the Nazis liked you or gave you any privileges whatsoever, it just meant that they were less likely to kill you.

Not taking a position about it, merely stating that it is probably the subject of Majakovskij's remark. His brother Paul vehemently opposed the deal, and indeed broke relations with family on such grounds, but it could be argued that Paul, like Ludwig, was already safe away from occupied Austria, while the others were trapped inside the meatgrinder.

Luís Henrique

[heiss93]

Kissenger's a slimy bastard, though it is very interesting that he found Mao's political philosophy worth studying. I am also pretty sure that someone in the new tory government is very influenced by mao's ideas. so far david cameron has said power to the people, has talked about public sector employs being responsible for "serving the people", the big society idea is basically maoism for the rich, ideologically ..

I don't see why Kissinger's colleagues would be so shocked that he assigned Mao. In a "know your enemy kind of way". The writings of Mao, Giap and Che are on all the official US military reading lists.

[Homo Songun]

Why does this remind me of Nixon and Kissinger discussing praying during Watergate?


Interesting to see two members of the ruling-class point out how Hegel influenced them.


Kissinger is by most accounts a fairly intelligent German so it seems natural that he would be acquainted with the philosophy of the most important bourgeois philosopher Germany has produced in the last couple centuries.

Mao was the most powerful Marxist theoretician of the latter half of the 20th century so it goes without saying he would be acquainted with one third of the source of that power.

Are people now titillated by the fact that statecraft entails the operation of diplomacy between opposed states? Yes, these two behemoths have the misfortune of having their names sullied by a passing association with each other. Insofar as this is a black mark against Maoism that many of the political strands of Revleft will thankfully never have a chance of being afflicted with, I do suppose that makes it a luxury of sorts.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Hegel, or Plato, or Teillard de Chardin, or Freud, or Comte, or whomever else. You can't prove that their ideas are noxious by showing that they had no sympathies for the left...
Luís Henrique
Nor can you start out with the uncorroborated assumption that Freud, Wittgenstein, etc. had no sympathies for the left as your operating principle, that's what Gordon Craig calls "The Politics of the Unpolitical."

[RED DAVE]

Kissinger is by most accounts a fairly intelligent GermanUhh. Shmuely, I hate to tell you boychik, but Kissinger is not just a German buta German Jew.


so it seems natural that he would be acquainted with the philosophy of the most important bourgeois philosopher Germany has produced in the last couple centuries.Acquainted with yes; knowledgeable about, why? Kissinger is only interested in whatever ideas will aggrandize the ruling class and himself.


Mao was the most powerful Marxist theoretician of the latter half of the 20th centuryMao was a kindergarten philosopher whose ideas lead to state and private capitalism. Some Marxist!


so it goes without saying he would be acquainted with one third of the source of that power.Mao's styuff on dialectics is atravesty and leads, in practice, to class collaboration.


Are people now titillated by the fact that statecraft entails the operation of diplomacy between opposed states? Yes, these two behemoths have the misfortune of having their names sullied by a passing association with each other. Insofar as this is a black mark against Maoism that many of the political strands of Revleft will thankfully never have a chance of being afflicted with, I do suppose that makes it a luxury of sorts.Huh? I guess Mao thought that hanging out with a mass murderer was cool. Then again, Mao's hands weren't exactly clean.

RED DAVE

[Luís Henrique]

Nor can you start out with the uncorroborated assumption that Freud, Wittgenstein, etc. had no sympathies for the left as your operating principle, that's what Gordon Craig calls "The Politics of the Unpolitical."

Of course not, you would have to analyse their writings and biographies.

I have extensively read Freud, and I have some knowledge of his biography. He was mainly apolitical, and so are his writings. He supported a centrist liberal party (which, of course, was the case of most of the Austrian Jewish community), and he evidently despised the conservative anti-semites of the catholic party, first and foremost Karl Lueger. And that's it.

Now, I think Freud is one of the most important thinkers of the 20th century, and I think that the left ignores his contributions at its own peril; ridiculous ideas that psychoanalysis is bourgeois, or, perhaps worse, metaphysical, being mere willful ignorance and obscurantism. Indeed, I would say that the most important source of valuable imput to the left, outside the Marxist field, comes directly or indirectly from Freud. Should I now proceed to rewrite his biography, taking isolated sentences or biographical anecdotes out of context in order to construe a false image of Freud as a militant left activist, active in Red Vienna, in order to justify my appraisal of his work? Sorry, but that's something I won't do, and that I think no one should do, whether the character in question is Freud, Wittgenstein, or whomever else.

Luís Henrique

[RED DAVE]

Of course not, you would have to analyse their writings and biographies.

I have extensively read Freud, and I have some knowledge of his biography. He was mainly apolitical, and so are his writings. He supported a centrist liberal party (which, of course, was the case of most of the Austrian Jewish community), and he evidently despised the conservative anti-semites of the catholic party, first and foremost Karl Lueger. And that's it.I heard Eric Fromm say, at a public meeting, that Freud had at one time considered a political career as a social democrat.

RED DAVE

[Luís Henrique]

I heard Eric Fromm say, at a public meeting, that Freud had at one time considered a political career as a social democrat.

He evidently decided for a quite different professional choice, though.

Luís Henrique

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

I have extensively read Freud, and I have some knowledge of his biography. He was mainly apolitical, and so are his writings.
Yes, Luis, I know what they teach in American colleges about Freud. I hear it regurgitated all the time, especially since I happen to be closely involved with a number of scholars who argue the opposite, and who are at the forefront in this field. (I myself am pursuing a parallel track in the realm of "apolitical" culture.) So I'm going to give you the same answer that I gave to one particular scholar who rose to argue the same thing you do at a lecture I attended in Vienna last year.

Your argument, as I said above, simply involves moving the goalpost as to what's "political," it's a form of academic purity trolling, it's part and parcel of being a grad student, meaning you've picked up the arguments of your "Marxist" teachers, who have very solid reasons to cover their butts. And I wouldn't mind it so much if it were mere academic turf wars, but it ends up where Paul Berman said it would a while ago, with the implicit dogma that "reality is right-wing." Academic pseudo-rads love that, it makes them feel like it's not their fault they're losers. Leave that kind of crap to Rosa.

And now I'm going to make this short because I have to go down to the Austrian National Library where I've reserved a journal c. 1930 that contains a review of Freud written by someone from the left wing of the Social Democrats who gradually evolved to become a leader of the Austrian Communist Party. Who knows, maybe he agrees with you; unfortunately, unlike the gentleman at the meeting, we won't have the chance to discuss it further over a schnitzel and a glass of veltliner. Be well.
[/QUOTE]

[Luís Henrique]

Yes, Luis, I know what they teach in American colleges about Freud.

Do you? I don't.


Your argument, as I said above, simply involves moving the goalpost as to what's "political," it's a form of academic purity trolling, it's part and parcel of being a grad student, meaning you've picked up the arguments of your "Marxist" teachers, who have very solid reasons to cover their butts.I would say you shouldn't try to guess other peoples' biographies in such way. It doesn't work. Nothing of this happened to me.

Luís Henrique

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Gee - here I was thinking you'd picked up your ideas second-hand, instead of third- and fourth-hand, or from bathroom walls. My bad.:blushing:

[Luís Henrique]

Gee - here I was thinking you'd picked up your ideas second-hand, instead of third- and fourth-hand, or from bathroom walls. My bad.:blushing:

If you consider "reading Freud extensively" (yes, this means most of what he wrote) "third or fourth hand", or if you equate his writings to bathroom walls, then sure, I got my ideas third or fourth hand, or perhaps when I was pooping.:rolleyes:

Luís Henrique

[maskerade]

Prime Minister Chou: Yesterday, a few of those who know German were joking together that German sentences are so long in length that they are quite a few pages, and one does not understand the sentences until you find the final verb, and the verb is at the very end. That, of course, is exaggerated. One sentence does not take several pages.

hahaha, most definitely the funny guy in Mao's camp. As for Kissinger sucking up, that is the job of a diplomat. He probably riducled Mao's texts when he assigned them to his classes.

[Crux]

A rather misleading statement. Attending the same high school as Hitler proves nothing about anything, especially since it seems they didn't know each other.

What is amazing about this Wikipedia entry is how little light it sheds on his political beliefs and attitudes to the tumultuous political and social events of his lifetime, despite its considerable length.

Well, Wikipedia is usually crap anyway.

-M.H.-
Well, I was merely poking fun at guilt-by-association arguments, by making the ultimate guilt-by-association argument, reducto ad hitlerum.

[A Marxist Historian]

Of course not, you would have to analyse their writings and biographies.

I have extensively read Freud, and I have some knowledge of his biography. He was mainly apolitical, and so are his writings. He supported a centrist liberal party (which, of course, was the case of most of the Austrian Jewish community), and he evidently despised the conservative anti-semites of the catholic party, first and foremost Karl Lueger. And that's it.

Now, I think Freud is one of the most important thinkers of the 20th century, and I think that the left ignores his contributions at its own peril; ridiculous ideas that psychoanalysis is bourgeois, or, perhaps worse, metaphysical, being mere willful ignorance and obscurantism. Indeed, I would say that the most important source of valuable imput to the left, outside the Marxist field, comes directly or indirectly from Freud. Should I now proceed to rewrite his biography, taking isolated sentences or biographical anecdotes out of context in order to construe a false image of Freud as a militant left activist, active in Red Vienna, in order to justify my appraisal of his work? Sorry, but that's something I won't do, and that I think no one should do, whether the character in question is Freud, Wittgenstein, or whomever else.

Luís Henrique

By the way, Trotsky, unlike most contemporary leftists, and for that matter leftists in his time, had a very high opinion of Freud, which he expressed on a number of occasions.

Trotsky however, definitely not regarding psychology as his field, pretty much left it at that.

-M.H.-

[Luís Henrique]

Trotsky however, definitely not regarding psychology as his field, pretty much left it at that.

Yeah, I definitely like his attitude. Why would a revolutionary have to have an opinion about all subjects? Why would we have to know whether Chomsky's theory of language is correct, or whether S. J. Gould or Richard Dawkins have the best take on Darwinism, much less make it part of the party line? Conversely, why would linguists or biologists be better or worse in their respective fields if they vote for the left or, on the contrary, are socially conservative?

Not all is politics, and politics is not all.

Luís Henrique