Russell's History of Western Philosophy

[Trissy]

Okay this topic is just to get everyones' views on The History of Western Philosophy By Bertrand Russell. I'm well aware people have discussed this before but I thought I'd bring it up again because I remarked that I disagreed with his interpretation of Nietzsche and didn't have the time to explain why I do properly. On the whole I think this book is very good and Russell took on one hell of a task when he wrote it. I just think his interpretation of Nietzsche suffered from a lack of biographical knowledge of his life, and because there wasn't any accurate English translations of his work at the time he wrote it (by that I mean Kaufmann or Hollingdale).


In spite of Nietzsche's criticism of the romantics, his outlook owes much to them; it is that of aristocratic anarchism, like Byron's, and one is not surprised to find him admirring Byron
Russell uses the term aristocratic a lot in his piece and I think this can be misleading. I believe the use of the terms aristocratic and noble by Nietzsche refers to superior strengths but not necessarily hereditary ones. I prefer to think of his outlook as better described as meritocratic anarchism.


What Caesar Borgia was to Machiavelli, Napoleon was to Nietzsche: a great man defeated by petty opponents
Not just petty opponents but also by their own overconfidence, and so therefore their own weakness. I think that both M and N disliked human weaknesses and attempted to highlight them.


True virtue, as opposed to the conventional sort, is not for all, but should remain the characteristic of an aristocratic minority
True virtue is defined by the noble man..they are his own values and are not derived from the values of the herd. This strikes me as rather existential thought of N's.


It is necessary for higher men to make war upon the masses, and resist the democratic tendancies of the age, for in all directions mediocre people are joining hands to make themselves masters
Higher men must also wage war against themselves, in the sense that even they contain weaknesses that they need to seek out and destroy.


His 'noble' man - who is himself in day-dreams - is a being wholly devoid of sympathy, ruthless, cunning, cruel concerned only with his own power

I get the impression that R suspects that the noble man would willingly crush those beneath him. Ultimately the noble man desires power over himself and his own life. If that involves having to take power over others who are weaker then so be it but he won't be cruel to them...cruelty is itself a sign of someone lacking enough will to power.


It never occured to Nietzsche that the lust for power, with which he endows his superman, is itself an outcome of fear. Those who do not fear their neighbours see no necessity to tyrannize over them
R provides no evidence of this. I suspect he is wrong because N frequently commented on the ignorance of man, and ignorance begets fear, which is very often fear of the unknown.


he is so full of fear and hatred that spontaneous love of mankind seems to him impossible. He has never conceived of a man who, with all the fearlessness and stubborn pride of the superman, nevertheless does not inflict pain because he does not wish to do so
The superman helps those weaker then him because he has an abundance of will to power, not because he has an abundance of weakness (ie pity). I don't recall N saying that the superman would always seek to cause hurt, pain and misery. Also perhaps N could see through 'spontaneous love of mankind' which R seems scared and therefore unable to do.


We can now state Nietzsche's ethic. I think what follows is a fair analysis of it:
Victors in war, and their descendants, are usually biologically superior to the vanquished. It is therefore desirable that they should hold all the power, and should manage affairs exclusively in their own interests
I don't know where to start here. Basically the superman is not a genetic creation. What follows is also misguided I feel.


Nietzsche despises universal love: I feel it the motive to all that I desire as regards to the world. His followers have had their innings, but we may hope that it is coming rapidly to an end
I think N hates only universal love that exists for no reason. If it has a reason or a purpose beyond the one Nietzsche suggests it may be of use, all he is saying that everything has a purpose whether we can see it or not, and that this purpose lies outside itself. R seems to think universal love can exist, nay should exist purely for it's own sake...like truth for truths sake.

Okay...anybody else got any views on Berties work? I realise I'll have to back up many of my claims with reference but I haven't got time at the moment. I also realise that his work on the whole is very good and that I'm nit picking (perhaps for personal reasons), and that Russell couldn't do extensive research into every topic due to time limitations. what are peoples' thoughts on his chapter on Marx and others? I confess I have yet to read his views on Marx.

All views appreciated (if you have been bothered to read all my boring points).

[Wenty]

I've read the whole book, ha! In fact i was reading the bit on Nietzsche only yesterday. I was a bit suprised by his views, they seemed typical of what I was always led to believe was the misinterpreted side to N.'s work (if thats even possible)

But i dunno. The chapter on Marx was a bit weird, he didn't seem to focus on much of Marx's work that we all know and love.

[Trissy]

I've read the whole book, ha!
:huh: erm...yes...you sure showed me!


I was a bit suprised by his views, they seemed typical of what I was always led to believe was the misinterpreted side to N.'s work (if thats even possible)
Well I have put forward some possible reasons for Russell's misinterpretation. Plus by the last comment, do you mean that it is impossible to misinterpret N ?

[Wenty]

Plus by the last comment, do you mean that it is impossible to misinterpret N ?

I was saying Nietzsche is often contradictory, its hard to interpret a lot of what hes saying let alone misinterpret.

[Trissy]

I was saying Nietzsche is often contradictory, its hard to interpret a lot of what hes saying let alone misinterpret

And that's where the fun and the challenge lie :D

[kroony]

Triple coincidence -- I was reading it the other day too! (and I've read it all).

Anyway, just to pick up on one point, Tristan:

I get the impression that R suspects that the noble man would willingly crush those beneath him. Ultimately the noble man desires power over himself and his own life. If that involves having to take power over others who are weaker then so be it but he won't be cruel to them...cruelty is itself a sign of someone lacking enough will to power
This "noble man" seeks to dominate himself, but as you have noted, to do that he has to dominate others too.

And don't they have a right to dominate their own life, if the "noble man" does?

Even if you claim that only some people have a right to dominate themselves, which in my opinion is utterly impossible, this "noble man" will come in to conflict with others of the same mould. And since there is no mechanism to solve the disputes, you end up with a situation of endless war between various barons -- a remarkably similar situation to Borgia's Italy.

[percept¡on]

yeah, Russell's interpretation seems simplistic as hell. Your critique is pretty much on point, but


Russell uses the term aristocratic a lot in his piece and I think this can be misleading. I believe the use of the terms aristocratic and noble by Nietzsche refers to superior strengths but not necessarily hereditary ones. I prefer to think of his outlook as better described as meritocratic anarchism.

Nietzsche does seem rather fond of nobility and aristocracy as they existed in Europe and especially Rome. And none of these systems were meritocratic, so I think to some extent Nietzsche admires hereditary nobility as well.

[Trissy]

This "noble man" seeks to dominate himself, but as you have noted, to do that he has to dominate others too.

And don't they have a right to dominate their own life, if the "noble man" does?

Even if you claim that only some people have a right to dominate themselves, which in my opinion is utterly impossible, this "noble man" will come in to conflict with others of the same mould. And since there is no mechanism to solve the disputes, you end up with a situation of endless war between various barons -- a remarkably similar situation to Borgia's Italy.

He doesn't have to dominate others, but there is a possibility he will be called on to do so.

There are no natural or innate rights Arie...none at all...people are not born with rights, rights are to struggled for.

Of course there will be struggles for power but I don't think there will be huge battles for control because I only see a noble man ever having to gain control over a small group of people. If the herd is split into smaller groups as the strong break out then there will be no vast armies controlled by noble men. Also noble men will have no need to fight one another unless people try to claim more power then they need in which case they will have to face the consequences of that...it that is war then so be it. In the end the only loser shall be weakness.


Nietzsche does seem rather fond of nobility and aristocracy as they existed in Europe and especially Rome. And none of these systems were meritocratic, so I think to some extent Nietzsche admires hereditary nobility as well
I agree that Nietzsche admired some hereditary aristocracies but I don't think he did so on the basis that they were hereditary, rather he admired the education and the values that these systems used on their young in order to make them strong people...he admired the development of strength and merit, not the biological makeup of these individuals. I understand the valid point you are making but I am also accutely aware of having to make a distinction in order to protect Nietzsche from those who would say that he was for selective breeding (which could be used to say Nietzsche's philosophy in some ways was similar to that of the Nazis).

[kroony]

There are no natural or innate rights Arie...none at all...people are not born with rights, rights are to struggled for. My point exactly.

Nietzsche is very keen to point out that we have no automatic or innate right to circumscribe the activities of the powerful. But in my opinion he doesn't carry this logic to its conclusion.

If the powerless have no right to curtail the actions of the powerful, then the reverse is also true. That the powerful have no right to dominate the weak.

Of course they have the ABILITY to dominate the weak, if the weak do not combine against them. But Nietzsche is guilty of a fallacy. He has abolished God -- but he has replaced God with powerful men -- it is now powerful men who, according to Freddie, have the right to shape men according to their whims.

[Trissy]

If the powerless have no right to curtail the actions of the powerful, then the reverse is also true
Yes but their strength and their willingness to struggle for power means they can establish that right.


Of course they have the ABILITY to dominate the weak, if the weak do not combine against them. But Nietzsche is guilty of a fallacy. He has abolished God -- but he has replaced God with powerful men -- it is now powerful men who, according to Freddie, have the right to shape men according to their whims
But the noble man only wishes to have power over his own life and make his own choices. The whims of the noble man will not harm the weak if he has sufficient will to power...if he doesn't then maybe they will suffer...but that is for them to fight for. The weak should only submit to the power of the strong in order to survive, and so only if it is in their best interest. If not then they can do something about it (namely rebel or fight).

[kroony]

But the noble man only wishes to have power over his own life and make his own choices. The whims of the noble man will not harm the weak if he has sufficient will to power... This "noble man" is non-extant Tristan. What exactly is "will to power", this magical quality that stops powerful men from being tyrants?

There's just no denying that "having power over one's own life" is only possible up to a point. Beyond that point, it is necessary to enslave people in order to establish that power -- and in the process, deny everyone else what you are claiming for yourself.

It is only possible for ONE individual to have complete power over himself. ALL the rest must be turned into slaves; slaves the like of which has never even been seen before.

Which individual will it be? There is no reason why it has to be any individual. There is no logical basis whatever for choosing which man "shall have power over himself". The philosophy of Nietzsche is a recipe for eternal civil war, because it provides no mechanism for dealing with the infringements of power of one individual over another.

[Trissy]

This "noble man" is non-existant Tristan
As of yet maybe. As for the future? who knows...


What exactly is "will to power", this magical quality that stops powerful men from being tyrants?
This will to power is the antithesis of bad faith. It is a coming to terms with the fact that we are condemned to be free and not fleeing from it. It is a desire to stop blaming others for the consequences of things brought about by our own choices. It is the realisation that we are only in this world the once, and that we should grasp life with both hands and never let go...


Beyond that point, it is necessary to enslave people in order to establish that power -- and in the process, deny everyone else what you are claiming for yourself
There does not have to be any enslavery...everything hinges on choice like I said earlier. The weak choose to submit only because it is in their interest to do so. Our consciousness is not matter, therefore it is not exposed to the same determination matter is. Therefore we are all free to choose how to act (within the limitations of our physical body), to try and claim power over our own lives. To pretend that you have been denied this freedom it to merely commit another act of bad faith...


It is only possible for ONE individual to have complete power over himself. ALL the rest must be turned into slaves; slaves the like of which has never even been seen before
Not necessarily...why must the world be one large hierarchy? If the noble man tells people to do things the weak are under no obligation to do so like I said in my earlier comments. They are free whether they choose to recognise it or not. In fact their very weakness sometimes hinges on their desire not to be free.


The philosophy of Nietzsche is a recipe for eternal civil war, because it provides no mechanism for dealing with the infringements of power of one individual over another
LIFE is eternal war! War against others and war against oneself. Do you believe the world around you to be a mostly peaceful one? Violence may be the most obvious outward sign of conflict, but wars no longer need to be fought with weapons to be destructive. The wars of the modern age are often fought with mere words, glances, and 'harmless' actions...

[kroony]

I'll just address one of your replies Tristan, since I believe it typifies the entire argument:

There does not have to be any enslavery...everything hinges on choice like I said earlier. The weak choose to submit only because it is in their interest to do so.
"Hey, Tristan give me all your money or I'll kill you!"
"That's theft"
"No it isn't. You're choosing to give me your money!"

In other words, in this situation it would no doubt be in your interests to give up your money. If you didn't I would kill you. And, I can't "make" you do anything one way or the other.

This is the "choice" that the weak would be faced with Tristan. A choice under threat of death is no choice at all.

[Trissy]

"Hey, Tristan give me all your money or I'll kill you!"
"That's theft"
"No it isn't. You're choosing to give me your money!"

Well it could still be argued that it is still was theft depending on the definition of theft you choose but I'll ignore that minor point for the time being.


In other words, in this situation it would no doubt be in your interests to give up your money. If you didn't I would kill you. And, I can't "make" you do anything one way or the other

We need to make a distinction here between freedom to choose and freedom to act. You cannot make somebody choose something (because there conscious is not made of matter so is not determined in any way) but you can make somebody do something through force (i.e. if you're stronger). Your example is difficult only in the sense that it combines the two...I have the choice as to whether to fight against you, to run away or to give you my money. However I am not free if you happen to catch me, stab me and forcefully take my money. For these reasons I think your example is not a suitable analogy and I shall say why in a minute.


This is the "choice" that the weak would be faced with Tristan. A choice under threat of death is no choice at all
There is a choice and you're commiting an act of bad faith if you deny it (even if you do so deliberately in a liberal desire to protect).

The noble men will not be able to force the weak to do what they want through mere strength or weaponry like your example suggests...he'll be outnumbered for a start. No, the noble man will have the weak under his control through his ability to persuade the masses through other means.

If the weak are persuaded through money and a small amount of power then so be it...but they have chosen to accept it what the noble men have to offer. It is not like the noble man has a knife to each and every one of their throats no matter how much you desire to see it that way...playing on people's desires...their own greed and vanity...that is all just part of the game called life.

Anyway in a communist society there will be little means for persuasion through money and the such like...in that sense we'll all be noble to some degree...the power of words shall be the one true tool of the noble man!

[kroony]

I think the great Jon Lyne said it best: 'Burn Tristan, Spurn Tristan, but you'll never Turn Tristan'.

The noble men will not be able to force the weak to do what they want through mere strength or weaponry like your example suggests...he'll be outnumbered for a start. No, the noble man will have the weak under his control through his ability to persuade the masses through other means.
Ok Tristan -- now you have significantly qualified your position. I'll grant you that Nietzsche doesn't explicitly condone violence so that the superman can get his way (so far as I know). However, with all his talk of Wars and Struggle and crushings and victory; it's highly dubious to claim that violence was never on his mind. Then again, he was a syphilitic weed, so maybe it wasn't :D.

In any case, for the sake of argument I'll accept that the Superman would not outrightly repress the population if he was alone -- but this brings me to my other point.


If the weak are persuaded through money and a small amount of power then so be it...but they have chosen to accept it what the noble men have to offer. It is not like the noble man has a knife to each and every one of their throats no matter how much you desire to see it that way...playing on people's desires...their own greed and vanity...that is all just part of the game called life. Now, of course one man, no matter how strong or cruel, can hold the rest of the world through threat of violence. But your next point reveals something interesting. (I think I will pass over in silence your insinuations that I'm being disingenuous -- we'll let the people decide)

Firstly, naked violence is not the only possible means of repression. To some extent we have what you seem to be proposing already. There are "noble men" (usually "noble" organisations) which have huge amounts of economic power, and thus the ability to control people.
Western systems have, by and large, prevented wealthy people and organisations from wholly controlling large sections of the population. But, it's interesting to see what happens when those restraints are taken away. Take for example domestic servants. It used to be that if you were a domestic servant -- particularly if you were a maid, you couldn't have any male friends. Why was that? Because they were afraid that if you had male friends, you would get married, and that if you got married, you would have a source of income other than your work, and would therefore no longer need to be a servant. Of course, servants coming and going all the time disrupts the life of the employer -- it means that they have to attend more to petty details such as hiring and training, which distract them from the finer pleasures of life.
Now, while it's true that the employers couldn't per se punish or kill the servants for disobeying the injunction, they could kick them out on the street. Your "persuasion by money and power" becomes something altogether more sinister. Either they entirely give up their lives to the "nobleman" (the victorians spelled it without the space), or they die. To fire someone when you know they have no other means of survival is to kill them. If we abolished restrictions on the powerful to the degree that you seem to advocate, we could expect a great deal more proxy killings in punishment for things which the powerful ought to have no jurisdiction.
So much for "persuasion through wealth and power". But there are other, more disturbing consequences which you have overlooked entirely. Of course, one man can never rule over a large number of people by his native force alone. However, throughout history, powerful men have delegated small amounts of power and money to bruisers. If you need examples, medieval barons and the modern mafia are two obvious examples. By creating a false dichotomy of "noble" and "slave" men, we pave the way for more of these charming protection rackets.

Now, lastly: what's this about a "communist society"? Since when did Nietzsche, or you for that matter, advocate one?

One word more: You seem to think that this "noble man" will not use force, either by proxy or directly, because he doesn't want to, not because he can't. If that's so, I suggest one thing: that you attempt to create this "noble man" before you attempt to create the situations in which he would flourish. Because, I don't think he exists yet.

[Trissy]

I think the great Jon Lyne said it best: 'Burn Tristan, Spurn Tristan, but you'll never Turn Tristan'
Correction...Jon Lyne simply said 'Burn Tristan' :( I added the last part :unsure: . To be fair you can change my mind on things but you are required to convince me beyond all reasonable doubt which is where the frustration lies. My view of science changed this year after all...


Now, while it's true that the employers couldn't per se punish or kill the servants for disobeying the injunction, they could kick them out on the street. Your "persuasion by money and power" becomes something altogether more sinister
I'm glad you saw the obvious problem in my argument because now it gives me the opportunity to explain it. Money plays a key role in our society...but what is it? Money is merely an idea...an object that symbolises our will to some extent but an idea none the less...if all the weak combined and abandoned their slave ethics and their acceptance of this fiction we call money then they could 'liberate' themselves from being under the thumb of the noble by becoming noble themselves. The bad faith by the masses, their use of slave ethics to hold back the strong...these are what we must rid ourselves of. What am I saying is needed? A noble revolution amongst the slaves! A realisation of the world and their place in it...the weak should not hold back the strong with their use of herd mentality...they should strengthen themselves! Does a revolution sound familiar? It's not necessarily a Nietzschean idea I'll grant you that...but it is my stance.


Either they entirely give up their lives to the "nobleman" (the Victorians spelled it without the space), or they die
Or they fight! They use their will to power...


If we abolished restrictions on the powerful to the degree that you seem to advocate, we could expect a great deal more proxy killings in punishment for things which the powerful ought to have no jurisdiction
Only if the weak cling to themselves and their ethical system. If they abandon it for a nobler system then we needn't expect the same outcome.


By creating a false dichotomy of "noble" and "slave" men, we pave the way for more of these charming protection rackets
Firstly, why is it 'false' dichotomy?

Secondly, as you may have established by now my view can be seen as a combination of some Marx's views and some of Nietzsche's ideas. If Communism can rid us of Capitalism, why can't Noble ethics rid us of Slave ethics in the way I've described?


what's this about a "communist society"? Since when did Nietzsche, or you for that matter, advocate one?

Nietzsche never advocated a communist society, nor have I ever claimed he did. Nietzsche was apolitical, and focused more on what he saw to be weaknesses and strengths in the human condition. As for me? Well I could be seen as apolitical in the sense I have not aligned myself with any political party or movement, but I do agree with Marx's assessment of the future of Capitalism and my views on the whole tend to be left wing and quite libertarian.


You seem to think that this "noble man" will not use force, either by proxy or directly, because he doesn't want to, not because he can't
Indeed...I don't say he won't ever use force, rather he will use force only when it is necessary. Using force when it is not necessary is a sign of a lack of will to power, not an abundance of it...


If that's so, I suggest one thing: that you attempt to create this "noble man" before you attempt to create the situations in which he would flourish. Because, I don't think he exists yet.
True, he might not exist but then again nor does the Superman. Does this mean we should not strive to create them? I think not...the next step in the evolution of man is not necessary, but rather something that must be chosen and fought for...evolution can produce decadence as well as something greater...and what comes with decadence? Extinction!

As for the situation or the conditions? Well if we must strive to reach these goals, we must strive to create the conditions required for these goals at the same time. I don't see why one must come before the other.

[themessiah]

trissy:

if you read russell you will be made aware he is unbelievably sarcastic. it is literally the entire point of his form of philosophy, mostly because of the level of opposition it receives by the average person.

you should be made aware, especially as he is concerned with any exhistentialist, that that school of philsophical thought is in direct opposition to his own. he abhores nietzche and the comparison to napoleon is typical of his sort of sarcasm. you have to know him and read him well to get it.

napoleon, right? petty opponents? russell is really saying that two mad men hell bent on their little global domination schemes ( like superman, hitler, conquering europe, etc. ) are better than the entire world opposing them. clear sarcasm. and when it comes to the philsophical world, the petty opponent to nietzche would be RUSSELL HIMSELF.

on the dust jacket of Ayer's book language truth and logic, russell's comment is thus " a splendid book, would like to have written it myself". his way of saying "didn't I publish the same book a decade ago? the average moron out there doesn't get russell when he says stuff like this. or makes digs against Nietzche for being a god hating, woman bashing lunatic.

[kroony]

Methinks the messiah protests too much.

It's an objective fact that Nietzsche wrote much about Napoleon. Whether he viewed Napoleon as a "great man" or not is another question.

I honestly don't see how you can extract sarcasm from a statement like "this is a splendid book". It could be that I'm just your proverbial "average moron", but for the benefit of all the other morons out there, I'd like a little clarification.

Lastly, Russell was concerned mostly with Logic and meaning, whereas the existentialists wanted to be "self authentic". These are two entirely different fields of Philosophy. And in any case, when Russell was writing, existentialism had barely begun. Saying they are directly opposed is rather like saying that Mercantilism is directly opposed to strawberry ice cream.

[Trissy]

if you read russell you will be made aware he is unbelievably sarcastic
yes, I am aware that Russell has a dry and often sarcastic sense of humour. However I feel that 'The History of Western Philosophy' was more then a mere personal project...I have the feeling he'd try and remain as objective as possible in his views of the various philosophers (with exception to when he puts his own view in...normally in the conclusion).


you should be made aware, especially as he is concerned with any exhistentialist, that that school of philsophical thought is in direct opposition to his own
As Arie points out Existentialism wasn't a field of philsophy when this book was published in 1945. Sartre and Camus (and hence Existentialism) came to light in the post war era of the 50's and 60's when people were still coming to terms with the Second world war and the Cold war. People still doubt whether or not Nietzsche is an Existentialist now, so I doubt whether Russell would have seen him as a threat in 1945 before the more accurate translations of Nietzsche's work were published and before Existentialism had risen to fame.


and when it comes to the philsophical world, the petty opponent to nietzche would be RUSSELL HIMSELF
I kind of understand your point but I don't think Russell would have dismissed Nietzsche's work as that of purely a madman, nor do I think Russell regarded himself as mad. In fact I think Russell's opinions fluctuated between being quite confident in his ability (like his work with for Nuclear disarmament ) and a complete lack of confidence (like during his split with Wittgenstein).


on the dust jacket of Ayer's book language truth and logic, russell's comment is thus " a splendid book, would like to have written it myself". his way of saying "didn't I publish the same book a decade ago? the average moron out there doesn't get russell when he says stuff like this. or makes digs against Nietzche for being a god hating, woman bashing lunatic
I don't think Russell considered himself a god hating lunatic or a woman bashing one. I think his criticism of Nietsche was more to do with a personal difference between their views rather then a subtle, sarcastic dig.

[themessiah]

kroony:

testament to this entire website - INCOMPLETE QUOTATIONS

was that all I said Russell said? didn't that sentence continue on to the effect that russel should like to have written it HIMSELF? THAT is possibly THE MOST sarcastic statement in print, EVER, ANYWHERE!

trissy:

your attribution of descriptions to objects is terrible. I can make little to no sense on a level of gramatical logic of your post as a result.

anyway, russell was ridiculed everywhere for his philosophy. and although most think he was sent to prison for his politics, it was actually as a result of the EFFECT his philosophy had on the population.

[Trissy]

your attribution of descriptions to objects is terrible
Would you care to provide some examples?


I can make little to no sense on a level of gramatical logic of your post as a result
You jest surely?

Do you care to provide examples of my poor 'grammatical logic'?
The use of '...' is merely to indicate a pause. It is the result of discussing things with people on MSN and in chat rooms and I hardly think it renders my posts unreadable. Everyone else seems to manage to answer them without any problems. However, if it is a problem on you part then I sadly cannot be to blame.


anyway, russell was ridiculed everywhere for his philosophy
I was aware that Russell was ridiculed in the political circles of the time, but that was for his knowledge of politics (or lack of it ), not his philosophy. I cannot see anything in his philosophical works that can be ridiculed. His political works may have been ridiculed for being a little Utopian at times, but what aspects of his philosophy are you thinking of?

[themessiah]

EXAMPLE:

I kind of understand your point but I don't think Russell would have dismissed Nietzsche's work as that of purely a madman, nor do I think Russell regarded himself as mad.


PROBLEM:

regarded himself, meaning Russell, as mad? you should have written HIM or NIETZCHE.


EXAMPLE:

I don't think Russell considered himself a god hating lunatic or a woman bashing one.


PROBLEM:

same as above

[Trissy]

Well it wasn't my poor grammar then, it was the fact that you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I am perfectly aware of what grammar is.


regarded himself, meaning Russell, as mad?
Yes! Betrand Russell did not consider himself (i.e. Bertrand Russell) to be mad


you should have written HIM or NIETZCHE
No I shouldn't have because that wasn't what I meant.

I wrote this comment is because you wrote this:

russell is really saying that two mad men hell bent on their little global domination schemes ( like superman, hitler, conquering europe, etc. ) are better than the entire world opposing them

then later this:

or makes digs against Nietzche for being a god hating, woman bashing lunatic

which struck me as implying that Russell makes a dig at Nietzsche because he considers himself to be his philosophical rival, and so someone who is similar to him. So if Russell thinks Nietzsche is a god hating, woman bashing lunatic then Russell must think of himself in the same way.


PROBLEM:

same as above
Yes...same as above.

[themessiah]

nonsense

russell wouldn't think of himself in any way

he IS himself

[Trissy]

russell wouldn't think of himself in any way

he IS himself
So you don't possess any views about yourself at all? I cannot have opinions about myself and you cannot have opinions about yourself? Somehow I doubt this.

If I can think about myself in both positive and negative terms then please explain to me why someone like Russell would not have held thoughts and opinions about himself.

[themessiah]

this all fits into my conclusion that you are having difficulty with grammar

do I possess views about myself? as what? a seperate entity? I possess views. those views are mine. all views are OF myself. why would I possess views ABOUT myself?

what you suggest is like pointing two mirrors at each other.

do you possess views about yourself, and IF SO, do you posess views about yourself possessing views about yourself. and IF SO, do you possess views about yourself possessing views about yourself possessing views about yourself? and IF SO...

this was EXACTLY what Russell was combating against

your ascription to him is like heresay anyway

[kroony]

Tell us, oh great grammatical one: is that supposed to be "hearsay" or "heresy"?

[Trissy]

about
adv.
1 Approximately; nearly: The interview lasted about an hour.
2 Almost: The job is about done.
3 To a reversed position or direction: Turn about and walk away slowly.
4 In no particular direction: wandering about with no place to go.
5 All around; on every side: Let's look about for help.
6 In the area or vicinity; near: spoke to a few spectators standing about.
7 In succession; one after another: Turn about is fair play.
8 a. On the verge of; presently going to. Used with the infinitive: The chorus is about to sing. b. Usage Problem Used to show determination or intention in negative constructions with an infinitive: I am not about to concede the point.

prep.
1 On all sides of; surrounding: I found an English garden all about me.
2 In the vicinity of; around: explored the rivers and streams about the estate.
3 Almost the same as; close to; near.
4 a. In reference to; relating to; concerned with: a book about snakes. b. In the act or process of: While you're about it, please clean your room.
5In the possession or innate character of: Keep your wits about you.

adj.
1 Moving here and there; astir: The patient is up and about.
2 Being in evidence or existence: Rumors are about concerning his resignation



this all fits into my conclusion that you are having difficulty with grammar
You're entitled to your opinion of course but I could not disagree with you more. I am at University and I have rarely ever been corrected on my grammar, even by the most pedantic and dilligent of English students or teachers. I like to pride myself on having a slightly better then average grasp of grammar and I rarely ever fall into the usual mistakes most people make on a day to day basis. As if the fact that you pulled me up on this wasn't bad enough, the idea that it makes my writing illegible I found laughable!


do I possess views about myself? as what? a seperate entity? I possess views. those views are mine. all views are OF myself. why would I possess views ABOUT myself?
I've highlighted the particular meaning of about I was using for you. I hope you'll see that the way I used it it is perfectly acceptable. I think you can use the word 'of' or the the word 'about'. If you want to debate the whether if goes with meaning of the word view I'll include that bellow for you as well.


view
n.

1 a. An examination or inspection: used binoculars to get a better view. b. A sight; a look.
2 A systematic survey; coverage: a view of Romantic poetry.
3 An individual and personal perception, judgment, or interpretation; an opinion: In his view, aid to the rebels should be suspended. See Synonyms at opinion.
4 Field of vision: The aircraft has disappeared from view.
5 A scene or vista: the view from the tower.
6 A picture of a landscape: a view of Paris, done in oils.
7 A way of showing or seeing something, as from a particular position or angle: a side view of the house.
8 Something kept in sight as an aim or intention: "The pitch of the roof had been calculated with a view to the heavy seasonal rains" (Caroline Alexander).



do you possess views about yourself, and IF SO, do you posess views about yourself possessing views about yourself. and IF SO, do you possess views about yourself possessing views about yourself possessing views about yourself? and IF SO...

I have opinions about myself. I have opinions about my ability to make judgements. Once at this stage any opinion about my ability to make an opinion ends up in a simply refering to itself as you have pointed out. I see no problem with this because language and thought are full of such loops, paradoxes and mysteries. Look at the many different applications of the verb 'to be' for instance. I fail to see how this relates to my poor grammar! That is a bit like Russell calling Frege's work pathetic because of his discovery of Russell's paradox.


this was EXACTLY what Russell was combating against
I don't think Russell really cared about grammar as much as you seem to. If anything he was trying to find a base to logic and mathmatics that did not require axoims.


your ascription to him is like heresay anyway
:lol: If your accusation is of heresy, I find quite amusing on many different levels coming from the messiah. Bravo!

I have the upmost respect for Russell, but I also admit that he was human and so his work was far from perfect. If you desire to find heresy then look no further then Wittgenstein because he thought that Russell work on language was poor to say the least.

If it's of hearsay, then I'm afraid your just wrong. I have works by Russell and I feel I know what I'm talking about. I know more about Nietzsche, I'll grant you that but I'm not uninformed when it comes to Russell.

[themessiah]

for the record, I said hearsay but typed heresay. sue me.

trissy:

you know nothing about russell. nothing. when you find something out, please look back, maybe fondly, to our interchange. if you don't mind me calling it that. and then think "boy, was I wrong!". because you are.

as for me, russell destroyed what was left of my mind about five years ago. I live only to die. and I WILL NOT welcome you into the club if you ever make it there.

[Trissy]

hazard (for it is clear to me that that is who you are):


you know nothing about russell. nothing
You know nothing about me. nothing. I will gladly discuss Russell with you until you die if you wish but my merely stating I know nothing does not make what you say true.


as for me, russell destroyed what was left of my mind about five years ago. I live only to die
care to explain how he had such an effect on you? Part of me wants to say this is bad faith on your part as nothing forced you to continue reading Russell once you'd started to read things that you felt were changing you.


and I WILL NOT welcome you into the club if you ever make it there
what club? I have no idea what you are talking about now. What evidence do you have that I'd ever want to be in the same club as you?

[themessiah]

trissy:

if I am a hazard it is all russells fault

I think it is clear you haven't really read any of his important stuff

and if you had, and understood it, you'd know exactly what I mean

I might spend the rest of my life trying to forget it

[Trissy]

if I am a hazard it is all Russell's fault

No I didn't say you were a hazard, I said you are Hazard. You are the same person who has an account under the name Hazard. There is very little 'if' about it. We can use logic to show that it is beyond reasonable doubt you are the same person (and I will gladly provide my reasoning if you require). The only questions that remain are how long you will keep a civil tongue in your head without slagging someone off, and how long the admins will put up with you before they decide that you need restricting to OI again.


if I am a hazard it is all Russell's fault

As someone who holds thoughts that are quite Existential, I cannot accept that it is Russell's fault. It is your fault. You freely choose to read Russell, and all the changes that this produced are also freely choosen by you. Consciousness is not made up of matter, and so it is not determined in the same way that the material world is determined. If it is not determined then consciousness is free. Hence you are free, you freely choose to read Russell and to change. You may have been heavily influenced to change by Russell's work but you were not determined, and so you choose your path. Any attempt to blame Russell is mere bad faith on your part (I'm assuming you understand what bad faith is to Sartre).


I think it is clear you haven't really read any of his important stuff
I am aware of most of Russell's work. I own 'The History of Western Philosophy', 'In Praise of Idleness', 'Why I am not a Christian' and 'Power'. I have read reasonable parts of each but if you'd like to point out essays in them that I should pay particular attention to then I shall gladly re-read them. If you want to suggest other essays in other books by Russell I shall also gladly read them too. However I still think my view of Russell is fair and not in any way problematic.

Also it may be clear to you that I haven't read any of his important stuff but I think many people would disagree with you. Also what makes your interpretation of Russell's work so accurate? It is merely subjective interpretation after all.


and if you had, and understood it, you'd know exactly what I mean

I might spend the rest of my life trying to forget it
No, I think I'd still have problems trying to work out what the hell you are going on about. You talk in riddles at times and it strikes me you that you suffer from some sort of neurotic delusion that requires sorting out.

[themessiah]

trissy:

oh I see, I am a banned member. well, so are you. you are, let me check the posts, smoking frog IV and I can prove it.

but I don't feel like it

freely chosen? are you out of your fucking mind? choice is an illusion! a facade! and I was assigned Russell in school anyway. so much for your dumb little paragraph about fault. please keep in mind blaming an individual for their actions is what makes capitalism capitalism. there is no WHOLE, no COMMUNE. just a billion stupid little insects all flying around doing, supposedly, what they want to do with no regard for anything or anybody but themselves. their choice, right? wrong.

you read is throw away stuff. the kind of stuff you might read if you are a fan, AFTER having your mind blown by POLA and POP. those are, respectively, PHILOSOPHY OF LOGICAL ATOMISM and PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY. his own work, and not criticisms of others such as those you have read.

but I did not mean any of the things I said as an insult. thats just the way I talk. when I write. when I talk I'm ten times worse.

[Trissy]

oh I see, I am a banned member
I never said you're a banned member. You were restricted. There is a difference. You were limited to OI as you well know.


well, so are you. you are, let me check the posts, smoking frog IV and I can prove it.

but I don't feel like it

*chuckles* but there is a difference here. I have evidence and you have none! You may not feel like it but I think I'd get a lot of pleasure out of highlighting the similarities between the two. Go on. Ask me to present them :lol: I dare you! Could it be that you know that the evidence is as damning as I do? I think so :)


freely chosen? are you out of your fucking mind? choice is an illusion! a facade!
Choice is a phenomena and as such it is all we can live with. You cannot live in the noumenal world. It is impossible. We are born free, and so we must live with our freedom. 'We are condemned to be free' as Sartre so aptly put it.


and I was assigned Russell in school anyway
So? You didn't have to read it or interpret it in the manner you did. Blaming Russell for you choices is simply an easy way out and an attempt to escape from your freedom (and hence your responsibility for every choice you make). Bad faith. No more, no less.


please keep in mind blaming an individual for their actions is what makes capitalism capitalism
Capitalism has remained a force through bad faith. Through people denying that they are free, and hence free to change their lives. Capitalism is not about blaming the individual, it is about people accepting their lives and not trying to change them which is itself a sign of bad faith. Existentialism is not about blame, it is about recognising that we are free. The price of freedom just happens to be that we accept responsibility for our actions, but that needn't be a bad thing. On the contrary it is where existing begins...


just a billion stupid little insects all flying around doing, supposedly, what they want to do with no regard for anything or anybody but themselves. their choice, right? wrong
Insects are examples of being-in-itself, their essence proceeds their existence. Humans are examples of being-for-itself, our existence proceeds our essence. We are free to define what our essence is, they are not. The humans you talk of are living lives of bad faith, as are you in blaming Russell for changes in your life. Freedom cannot be denied in the manner you are attempting.


what you read is throw away stuff
No, what I read are books made up of a series of his essays or lectures. A very good series it turns out.


the kind of stuff you might read if you are a fan
I'm am not a mere fan. I am studying philosophy at University and have a rather good understanding of the issues at stake. From what angle do you approach these issues?


PHILOSOPHY OF LOGICAL ATOMISM and PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY
I haven't read the philosophy of logical atomism, but in regards to 'The problems of philosophy' it is more a introduction to the issues at stake in philosophy. A good pamphlet or introduction for the beginner. It is one of his most famous works, but not one of his most groundbreaking ones.


his own work, and not criticisms of others such as those you have read
'The problems of philsophy' are not his own thoughts, they are a collection of problems that had been known in philosophical circles for a long time. He merely put them in all together in a book, and wrote them in a manner that was easily readable to the majority of people.

'The History of Western Philosophy' is not a criticism, it is a series of evalutations of some of the most important philsophers in the West. He is not criticising them, but rather attempting to give a fair appraisal. He writes a large amount about the Christian philsophers in the Medieval period without attacking them. If we followed you logic he would attempt to slag them off as he is one of the most well known athiest philosophers ever.

'Power' is not a criticism, it is Russell's attempt to produce an influential work like that of Freud. Freud linked our actions to sex and Russell attempted to link it to power. As a piece of political philosophy is was a failure which disappointed Russell a lot as he hoped it would do well.

'Why I am not a Christian' is made up of a series of essays Russell wrote against religion. It is not just his views, but a series of arguments againt religion from numerous centuries of thought. In that sense it is similar to 'The Problems of Philosophy'.

'In praise of Idleness' is another series of essays which are Russell's own thoughts this time, in which he praises the cool, calm reasoning. He also writes an interesting article about communism and fascism in which he states why he disagrees with both (as you'll know Russell was a commited Socialist).


but I did not mean any of the things I said as an insult. thats just the way I talk. when I write. when I talk I'm ten times worse
Oh...I wan't talking about me. I was slightly annoyed by your attack on my grammar (which I believe I have now defended), rather I meant the way you insulted people like Always Question and Giest. Don't you remember? I could drag up the relevant insults if you wish but I'm sure you remember them anyway.

[themessiah]

POP was not what you said it was. if you were to look at the title, like you did, and make up what you thought it was about, like you did, you might come up with what you said. like you did.

as sartre argued, we have no choice but to choose to committ suicide. and thus we have no choice.

trissy, for an entry level sort of I read but fail to understand philosophy type you toss around your feather weight quite a bit. like your stupid conclusion regarding my insect analogy. its an analogy. like a metaphore. to do what you did, I mean, what did you do? don't you understand that I was using an effective philosophical tool to illustrate my point? what do you understand?

[Trissy]

POP was not what you said it was
I beg to differ.


if you were to look at the title, like you did, and make up what you thought it was about, like you did, you might come up with what you said. like you did.

Wrong yet again dear Hazard. I took Problems of Philosophy out of the library this term in order to write my essay on the philosophy of Science. I am well aware of what the Problems of Philosophy is about and don't believe I have done it any injustice. If you beg to differ please do try again!


as sartre argued, we have no choice but to choose to committ suicide. and thus we have no choice.
do you care to provide a relevant referance point for this bizarre revelation? Sartre's whole philosophy argues for human freedom not against it! Sartre viewed suicide as meaningless because it is an event that has no future and so cannot have any meaning to it. Life may have no meaning to Sartre but he certainly doesn't argue for suicide or against freedom. Your knowledge of Sartre seems hideously inaccurate!


trissy, for an entry level sort of 'I read but fail to understand philosophy' type you toss around your feather weight quite a bit
Hazard, I understand more about philosophy then you appear to. I bet that if we got a room full of the current leading philosophers in the world, and they asked us are interpretations of various great philosophers, I am very condifent that they'd say my interpretations were more accurate then yous. However, I'm also aware that you megalomania means if this were the case you'd merely see this an another injustice the world has caused you. I am not a beginner to philosophy, nor am I a lightweight. You on the other hand, seem to be full of little more then odd interpretations and hot air.


like your stupid conclusion regarding my insect analogy. its an analogy
I recognised it as an analogy. I was refering to your 'freely chosen? are you out of your fucking mind? choice is an illusion! a facade!' comment more then anything. You were denying your freedom, and I am seeking to highlight your bad faith. Your analogy compares humans to insects and where as this may work on some levels, in fails on others. I was pointing out that being-for-itself even in bad faith, is different to being-in-itself.


don't you understand that I was using an effective philosophical tool to illustrate my point?
I was barely even aware you had a point beyond attempting to blame others for your life.


what do you understand?
More then you apparently.

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 07:05 PM
Consciousness is not made up of matter, and so it is not determined in the same way that the material world is determined. If it is not determined then consciousness is free. Hence you are free, you freely choose to read Russell and to change. You may have been heavily influenced to change by Russell's work but you were not determined, and so you choose your path. Any attempt to blame Russell is mere bad faith on your part (I'm assuming you understand what bad faith is to Sartre).

Lovely conversation on consciousness Trissy, very nice. Try to see the movie "What the $^@#$( Do We Know?" about how consciousness forms reality from a physicists point of view very existential.

Nice work all together trying to sort here, you are to be commended. From my end I'll stick to a simple text such as "From Socrates to Satre: the Philosophic Quest" by T.Z. Lavine the lazy women's way out.

[Trissy]

Lovely conversation on consciousness Trissy, very nice. Try to see the movie "What the $^@#$( Do We Know?" about how consciousness forms reality from a physicists point of view very existential
I didn't at any time explain how the consciousness forms reality, all I said that it was not made up of matter and so it cannot be determined in the same way matter is. It is phenomenological ontology, and as such is philosophy not science. It doesn't even attempt to be science because the philosophy of science has its own problems.

Breaking the phenomenological ontology down we see Sartre's thinking go like this:
*Consciousness has intentionality. Consciousness is always of something. Right now I am conscious of the room I am in, and the people in this room. I am not conscious of the things I cannot sense.
*Consciousness can never be conscious of itself. We cannot be self-conscious directly. The term self-conscious relates to us becoming aware of somebody (who is therefore matter) being aware of us.
*So consciousness has intentionality but cannot be truly self-conscious. This is because consciousness is not part of the material world, and so consciousness is not made up of matter.
*Consciousness is not made up of matter then it is not determined in the same way matter is determined by the laws of nature.
*Consciousness is not determined by matter then it is free. This is not the same as saying that we aren't influenced by the world around us, it is saying that at the end of the day we have a choice. From here Existentialism as a field begins.

I apologise if I skipped out the line of reasoning but I assumed Hazard (who I was replying to) knew what I was talking about. Now I have provided Sartre's train of thought I hope it makes slightly more sense.

[themessiah]

trissy:

I knew already you disagreed. But to beg to differ...well I never!

now I gotta pop open my POP notes and see how wrong you are. before I do so I'm willing to wager about one hundred percent since I know already that the problems russell speaks of have nothing to do with the generalizations you mention.

what is the "problem" of philsophy, trissy? here's a hint - it's not "'The problems of philsophy' are not his own thoughts, they are a collection of problems that had been known in philosophical circles for a long time. ". its not that at all. what is it? bet you don't know. and it has everything to do with POLA.

as for existentialism, my conclusion is dead on. sartre' s book EXISTENTIALS AND HUMAN EMOTION can be summarized in my conclusion. a waste of time and effort. the way you interpret it is the trap that existentialism actually is. a trap. there IS NO FREEDOM. this is as ancient as a thought as all philosophy hinges upon. THERE IS NO CHOICE. just as ancient. existentialism is a modern interpretation of this thousand year old thoughts. nothing has changed. it is simply an atheists approach to understanding the limitations of the human species. instead of God defining our existence, humans define it for themselves. and as for the prospect of choice, since there is none, the only choice we have is our choice to end our own existence. sartre actually even says this in as few words as I do. probably less. the only way out of this philosophical mind trap is through LOGICAL ATOMISM as presented by russell. but your're too busy calling his method out as "not ground breaking" and "not an original work"

trissy, like I said, when you read his real work let me know.

[Trissy]

now I gotta pop open my POP notes and see how wrong you are
You make notes! Wow! I am impressed. Do you view your notes as highly as you do your art (i.e. your poetry)?


now I gotta pop open my POP notes and see how wrong you are
You doubted my 'grammatical logic' and were found wanting. I shall gladly defend my views on philosophy.


before I do so I'm willing to wager about one hundred percent since I know already that the problems Russell speaks of have nothing to do with the generalizations you mention
Wager 100%? Not just 99%? That's ever so brave of you!

They are not generalisations. The problems Russell raises have been around for a long time. The only original thing Russell did is to write it all in one book in his style, and to provide his conclusions. Content wise very little of it is new accept for perhaps his conclusions which are unsurprisingly linked in with his logical atomism. Many philosophers have attempted to answer these questions and have provided answers in their own way. Russell is no different. His work is not gospel any more then other philosophers interpretations of the problems. Give the problems to Hegel and no doubt his replies would be in with his philosophical paradigm.



as for existentialism, my conclusion is dead on. Sartre' s book EXISTENTIALS AND HUMAN EMOTION can be summarized in my conclusion. a waste of time and effort
You fail to present any evidence for this conclusion. 'Existentialism and humanism' (as it is also known) is a book that stems from a lecture Sartre gave in defence of Existentialism. I have read it and I see nothing from which you could draw your conclusions. If you care to refer to any passages then I'll gladly debate them with you. But Hazard you so far have provide very little evidence to back up any of your accusations against me, or my interpretation of philosophy. You're very good at saying things but so far useless at backing them up.


the way you interpret it is the trap that existentialism actually is. a trap. there IS NO FREEDOM. this is as ancient as a thought as all philosophy hinges upon. THERE IS NO CHOICE. just as ancient
Only if you live your life through excuses. You're living in bad faith if you deny your freedom and I could come up with relevant quotes from 'Existentialism and Humanism' if you so desire. I could also refer you to 'Nausea' or 'Being and Nothingness'.


it is simply an atheists approach to understanding the limitations of the human species. instead of God defining our existence, humans define it for themselves. and as for the prospect of choice, since there is none, the only choice we have is our choice to end our own existence
Partly right . Existentialism is an area of philosophy that deals with the uncertainty of God's existence. If we have no God to guide us (such as an agnostic or an atheist would believe) then we must guide ourselves. We still have Christian existentialists though like Kierkegaard and Jaspers and they deal with how to live in the uncertainty of God's characteristics. However it goes beyond religion in the fact that it deals with phenomena.

I can't recall Sartre ever saying we have no choice but to end our own existence. That is total rubbish. If you care to point me in the direction of how you came to that conclusion (no doubt you took something out of context), then I correct it and then refer you to a lot more ideas that are contrary to it in Sartre's work.


the only way out of this philosophical mind trap is through LOGICAL ATOMISM as presented by russell
You cannot escape phenomena. Russell's philosophy is merely an alternative view of how we should deal with phenomena.


but you’re too busy calling his method out as "not ground breaking" and "not an original work"
Quoting out of context again dear Hazard? I said as a book 'The Problems of Philosophy' is not ground breaking or terribley original as I have addressed above. I have found a copy of POP if you wish to debate it with me, and as for POLA I shall look into find a copy as soon as my last exam is out of the way this Friday. I am in no doubt Russell did contribute some original and ground breaking thoughts in his lifetime. I just doubt that you'll find them in POP.


trissy, like I said, when you read his real work let me know
sounds like a convenient excuse to me. I shall look further into his work but I see not reason to stop correcting your often vulgar views on philosophy. Plus who are you to judge what his 'real work' is? I think Russell valued all his books and essays.

[Sideshow Luke Perry]

The bad faith by the masses, their use of slave ethics to hold back the strong...these are what we must rid ourselves of

I know this is from ages ago, and this debate seems to have turned into one about who can spell the best, but I bought this book and am about to start reading (when I get through "History and Class Consciousness" by Lukacs). This quote, however, by one of the posters in this thread, interests me. So the problem of the working class is the working class, I guess you see it as? Nothing to do with the "strong"? Gotta call on Marx on this one, about the dominant ideas in a society being the ideas of the ruling class. We try, and as long as we work at building socialist organisations we're throwing off the muck of ages (mixed quotes, sorry) and working towards the goal of a socialist society. I don't know enough about Nietzsche to know if that's his interpretation or yours, but if it is his then surely socialists would disagree with it?

[Trissy]

this debate seems to have turned into one about who can spell the best
The grammar thing was started by Hazard (or 'themessiah') and I was just defending myself. The whole 'your crap at philosophy' thing is exactly the same.


So the problem of the working class is the working class, I guess you see it as?
Not entirely. The nature of class antagonism means that the problem of oppression of the weak by the strong has two sides to it. The strong are exploiting the weak and so are the part of the problem (i.e. the cause), and yet the weak are also to blame for accepting this and not revolting. This I believe stems to the herd instinct of the masses, their slave ethics and bad faith.


Nothing to do with the "strong"?
I never said that, and if that is what it seems like I'm saying then I apologise for not being clear enough.


Gotta call on Marx on this one, about the dominant ideas in a society being the ideas of the ruling class
Marx was aware that the working class would have to be aware of their exploitation and their ability to prevent it for the revolution to occur. In that sense I think I am fine relating the existential term of 'bad faith' (from Sartre) with the Marxist term 'class unconsciousness'. The working classes cannot deny their freedom and so they cannot deny their responsibility for themselves. I don't see much Marx could disagree with.


We try, and as long as we work at building socialist organisations we're throwing off the muck of ages (mixed quotes, sorry) and working towards the goal of a socialist society
Not all of us try. Most are content to accept the Capitalism as natural, and so unable to be changed. Some of us do try and change it but that is not to say that we all strive for it.


I don't know enough about Nietzsche to know if that's his interpretation or yours, but if it is his then surely socialists would disagree with it?
It is my interpretation of some of the work of Nietzsche, Sartre and Marx. Nietzsche didn't really care for party politics and so he never commented directly on these issues, instead he commented on morality and the human condition in general. Sarte commented on human conditions, freedom and to a small extent politics, and you know what Marx wrote on. It is my unique interpretation and one I hope to build into my own philosophical theory. Socialists may disagree with me but I think they'd do so because they didn't understand what I was saying.

[themessiah]

trissy:

I'm too old too argue with you. and too tired. too sick. too sick and tired. and too lazy. too fed up.

its not worth the aggravation

thought maybe I'd point out that I think you're under estimating the power of POP. it is an introduction only to POLA. I read POLA first. maybe thats why I see it like that. or was that published second? pola was like russell ranting to a crowd, almost at his own mad whims. written out. I dunno. I don't care.

I had too many pieces of garlic bread with my tortellini and I can't settle down. think if I lie down I might not wake up. I can only hope.

wish me well

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 04:09 PM

Breaking the phenomenological ontology down we see Sartre's thinking go like this:
*Consciousness has intentionality. Consciousness is always of something. Right now I am conscious of the room I am in, and the people in this room. I am not conscious of the things I cannot sense.
*Consciousness can never be conscious of itself. We cannot be self-conscious directly. The term self-conscious relates to us becoming aware of somebody (who is therefore matter) being aware of us.
*So consciousness has intentionality but cannot be truly self-conscious. This is because consciousness is not part of the material world, and so consciousness is not made up of matter.
*Consciousness is not made up of matter then it is not determined in the same way matter is determined by the laws of nature.
*Consciousness is not determined by matter then it is free. This is not the same as saying that we aren't influenced by the world around us, it is saying that at the end of the day we have a choice. From here Existentialism as a field begins.

I apologise if I skipped out the line of reasoning but I assumed Hazard (who I was replying to) knew what I was talking about. Now I have provided Sartre's train of thought I hope it makes slightly more sense.
Thank you Trissy for educating me, having read Les Mouches in French and English by age 16 I was ignorant to your interpretation of Sartre :lol:

In my ignorance I assume your are pulling Sartre&#39;s phenomenological ontology from Being and Nothingness where Sartre paints his great portrait of human consciousness, but being a silly woman I wouldn&#39;t understand what you big boys are talking about would I <_<

Some people feel that Sartre in fact painted himself into a corner by determining such a level of freedom for consciousness that ethics became problematic, so that he made an existentialist leap to Marxism to make up the difference.
but I think the fundamental difficulty Sartre had was that he did not have a deep enough understanding of what lie at the center of consciousness itself, confusing it with nothingness.

The answer, to my understanding lies within the Buddhist idea of mind being empty of inherent existence, or emptiness. This conception of emptiness and nothingness as not being the same implies that emptiness has at its heart some sort of existence, but just barely. It is more an essence, and it is this essence which perhaps Sartre was referring to when he penned the word existential.

To read a dialectic format relating to emptiness by the great mystic Nagajuna of India, who is credited with some of the greatest discourses on emptiness the world has ever known read Ocean of Nectar by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso Rinpoche, it is what was handed down to him by Trijong Rinpoche who taught the Dalai Lama, and is a short version of the Great Mother from the Emanation Scripture a document which is invisible to human eyes. Most of these documents which are visible go back a few thousand years, and through logical deduction nihalate and negate the inherent existence of related objects through picking apart the cells of the body and dicussing the concept of a motherless child etc.

The ethics of emptiness are that by its very nature it is one with the nature of compassion, just as emptiness pervades all things, so does love. Attachment on the other hand is just grasping at an existent self which is utterly ridiculous

I think you&#39;ll like them, they are very humbling.

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 06:03 AM
think if I lie down I might not wake up. I can only hope.

wish me well
Messiah, please do not allow a simple retort to distress you so much that you wish not to awaken, this is ridiculous, I hope that you are joking
get outside and play in the garden in the sun, forget all this intellectual cock-sizing for a bit.
Sincerly Pandora

[Trissy]

thought maybe I&#39;d point out that I think you&#39;re under estimating the power of POP. it is an introduction only to POLA
Well when I get the time I shall settle down and read both. I don&#39;t think they&#39;ll blow me away as such because Russell&#39;s Logical Atomism is his slightly different version of Hume&#39;s epistemology. I&#39;m aware it influenced Wittgenstein in his early version of Logical Atomism and I&#39;m aware that it also influenced the Vienna Circle, but as a system of philosophy I don&#39;t think it is a suitable philosophy to live by.


wish me well
Good luck with finding whatever it is you seek.


Thank you Trissy for educating me, having read Les Mouches in French and English by age 16 I was ignorant to your interpretation of Sartre
I wasn&#39;t attempting to educate you, I was merely stating where I was coming from as simply as I could manage. That way people can feel free to try and pick fault in with what I think.


... but being a silly woman I wouldn&#39;t understand what you big boys are talking about would I <_<
Oh my&#33; :o I don&#39;t actually recall saying anything along those lines anywhere. Could it be that you&#39;re putting words in my mouth? <_<


Some people feel that Sartre in fact painted himself into a corner by determining such a level of freedom for consciousness that ethics became problematic
It only become a problem for those people who need an absolute system of ethics by which to justify their lives. I have no such problem with it in that respect.


To read a dialectic format relating to emptiness by the great mystic Nagajuna of India, who is credited with some of the greatest discourses on emptiness the world has ever known read Ocean of Nectar by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso Rinpoche, it is what was handed down to him by Trijong Rinpoche who taught the Dalai Lama, and is a short version of the Great Mother from the Emanation Scripture a document which is invisible to human eyes. Most of these documents which are visible go back a few thousand years, and through logical deduction nihalate and negate the inherent existence of related objects through picking apart the cells of the body and dicussing the concept of a motherless child etc.
I&#39;m afraid I haven&#39;t read any Eastern philosophy, and the closest I think I&#39;ve got to it is reading Schopenhauer who was influenced by many of their ideas. I think it&#39;s sad that we don&#39;t learn much about it in the West, but it&#39;s also interesting as it shows an alternative view of the world.


The ethics of emptiness are that by its very nature it is one with the nature of compassion, just as emptiness pervades all things, so does love. Attachment on the other hand is just grasping at an existent self which is utterly ridiculous
By ethics of emptiness do you mean asceticism? If you do then I&#39;m not sure I would like it. I don&#39;t want to be a naysayer to life; I want to say ‘Yes&#33;’ In that sense Existentialism appeals to me because of it&#39;s optimism.


I think you&#39;ll like them, they are very humbling
But why would I want to be humble? I merely want to be. To become who I am as Nietzsche would put it.


get outside and play in the garden in the sun, forget all this intellectual cock-sizing for a bit
:redstar2000: Dr.Freud says "A prime example of penis envy&#33;"

:lol:

[themessiah]

pandora and trissy:

it was the tortellini. it made me feel so ill even intellectual cock sizing lost its appeal.

unfortunately I bought the 1kg bag and have to eat the rest of it before it goes bad. that will not be fun. its good when you start to eat, but half an hour later it just sits in your, uh, belly. and feels like a rock.

T: fine. without reading russell say he is slightly different than Hume. thats like me saying, without trying it, that cheese tortellini in fredo sauce is a slightly different version of beef ravioli in tomatoe sauce.

P: the retort is evident of the lack of content. like you ever watch Xena when she&#39;s fighting aries to a standstill for like ten minutes? whats the point? we all know aries could waste xena, he is a god, but nobody knows why he doesn&#39;t. least of all aries.

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 03:06 PM


To read a dialectic format relating to emptiness by the great mystic Nagajuna of India, who is credited with some of the greatest discourses on emptiness the world has ever known read Ocean of Nectar by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso Rinpoche, it is what was handed down to him by Trijong Rinpoche who taught the Dalai Lama, and is a short version of the Great Mother from the Emanation Scripture a document which is invisible to human eyes. Most of these documents which are visible go back a few thousand years, and through logical deduction nihalate and negate the inherent existence of related objects through picking apart the cells of the body and dicussing the concept of a motherless child etc.
I&#39;m afraid I haven&#39;t read any Eastern philosophy, and the closest I think I&#39;ve got to it is reading Schopenhauer who was influenced by many of their ideas. I think it&#39;s sad that we don&#39;t learn much about it in the West, but it&#39;s also interesting as it shows an alternative view of the world.


The ethics of emptiness are that by its very nature it is one with the nature of compassion, just as emptiness pervades all things, so does love. Attachment on the other hand is just grasping at an existent self which is utterly ridiculous
By ethics of emptiness do you mean asceticism? If you do then I&#39;m not sure I would like it. I don&#39;t want to be a naysayer to life; I want to say ‘Yes&#33;’ In that sense Existentialism appeals to me because of it&#39;s optimism.
Emptiness simply means a lack of inherent existence, but it is merely a lack, by negating inherent existence it does not put something else such as spac, in its place so it does not fall into nihilism or the other extreme of non-existence.

The mind exists, but just barely, similar to the outline of the wings of a dove after it has passed. They use many strange analogies which produce feelings for it similar to existentialism, but beyond this. In reality everything is emptiness posing as matter by its winds related into atoms, but if we break down those atoms we never find a thing we can call matter, quite profound as these ideas are thousands of years old and only now proven in physics.

What this means in praxis is that we create our world through our mind, or by what we perceive and chose to perceive which grants enormous freedom, the catch is we are still in a perceived reality created by past karma or mental patterns and this takes a great deal of training to work through.




Sorry for getting rough, figured you could handle it, now on your other query. First off beside a few butch ladies I don&#39;t really believe in penis envy.
As far as penis envy, they are actually quite ugly, I quite prefer my lucious vulva, purply vagina, and luminous orbs of breast. The clitoris which mine is also lovely is not my favorite bit, perhaps if it were I would have some penis envy as it is a similar bundle of nerve endings, except of course the clitoris has many more and it&#39;s concentrated&#33;

I sometimes enjoy women but prefer men, and can by any sort of dildo I please if that were my interest, but it&#39;s not, I find pentration to not be that big of a deal, and prefer intellectual stimulation myself :lol: so back to the philosophy.

I never could understand why men though are so obsessed with penis size any kind will work with the right technique and amount of kindness, strange. What was the name of the man the Greek Goddesses blinded who was both male and female for telling the world that women enjoy sex more, I agree entirely.

[Trissy]

What this means in praxis is that we create our world through our mind, or by what we perceive and chose to perceive which grants enormous freedom, the catch is we are still in a perceived reality created by past karma or mental patterns and this takes a great deal of training to work through
I never quite understood the Buddhist idea of karma and reincarnation (which also applies in Hinduism although they differ slightly). Not the ideas as such, but rather the basis for them. If you have a teaching that focuses on the human condition why introduce things which there is little evidence for? Justice in a human sense I&#39;m fine with, but what evidence do we have for Universal justice except if we use the variety of life on this planet as the source of some belief to satisfy human mysteries? Also what reasons do we have to call the human race the top of the reincarnation ladder? Considering the size of the Universe the chance other intelligent lifeforms being out there is not that low. Finally I realise some people would say recalling past lives is evidence of reincarnation but I don&#39;t necessarily agree. I can recall my dreams from time to time but that is not to say they have the same type of existence as my fully conscious experiences. Why can&#39;t these recollections of previous experiences merely be due to the complicated workings of the human mind?

:unsure: sorry if I asked a lot of cliched questions but I get bored at questioning the usual Western monotheistic religions.


First off beside a few butch ladies I don&#39;t really believe in penis envy
I agree with you there. I think that the human mind is curious about lots of things and sex is just another thing. I don&#39;t see any reason why women would be jealous of a penis. I think sex just fascinates both sexes at times.


As far as penis envy, they are actually quite ugly
I don&#39;t know. I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder in that aspect. Some things we just happen to find more beautiful then others. I think a good photographer can make almost anything look beautiful if they can find the right angle. A birds eye view of the top of my head is my best (read &#39;least ugly&#39;) angle or so I am led to believe...


I quite prefer my lucious vulva, purply vagina, and luminous orbs of breast
Well I&#39;ll never find the first two that attractive and breasts just confuse me full stop. I just don&#39;t understand why men find them so god damn fascinating. They&#39;re constantly looking for them&#33; <_< I understand them as a device for delivering milk to babies, but I can never understand why they produce such hysterical responces forom grown men. I am yet to hear a plausible explanation for this phemenon.


The clitoris which mine is also lovely is not my favorite bit, perhaps if it were I would have some penis envy as it is a similar bundle of nerve endings, except of course the clitoris has many more and it&#39;s concentrated&#33;
Clitorises also have the slight disadvantage in that men cannot find where the hell they are (even with a detailed map) whereas they can find their cock pretty easily. It may aslo explain why evolution has made one small and concentrated, and the other larger and less concentrated. Hmmm...maybe breasts evolved in order to woo man away from his relationship with his hand :wacko:


I sometimes enjoy women but prefer men
Feel free to have as many women as you want. It leaves more fish in the sea for me :)


I find pentration to not be that big of a deal, and prefer intellectual stimulation myself :lol: so back to the philosophy
Well I&#39;m all for intellectual stimulation but I wouldn&#39;t mind a good balance of the two.


I never could understand why men though are so obsessed with penis size any kind will work with the right technique and amount of kindness, strange
A general rule of thumb for the way a man&#39;s mind works is as follows...
&#39;the bigger the better&#39;. It can be applied to toys, guns, cars, breasts and of course we as a sex tend to think it applies to penises as well.


What was the name of the man the Greek Goddesses blinded who was both male and female for telling the world that women enjoy sex more, I agree entirely
I think men worry too much about it. How was I? Did she enjoy it? Was she faking it? I am big enough for them? Am I getting enough of it? Will they want to try this? Are my fantasies normal? Am I normal? etc etc etc...

We need to chill out, and stop acting so macho and pretending we don&#39;t care as long as we&#39;re getting lots of it.