|
|
Post by The Lost One on May 20, 2020 7:38:48 GMT
Hatred is one thing, but he gives any philosopher way too much credit in thinking that it was their musings that gave rise to fascism etc. He also ignores the more unpleasant aspects of his so-called Lockean tradition (eg Locke's apologia for genocide of native Americans or Hume's white supremacism) because they interfere with his narrative of Enlightened Lockeans vs Romantic Rousseauians. TBH, I don't remember Russell arguing this It's the narrative of his History of Western Philosophy - that after Descartes, philosophy largely split into two branches: the analytical side that followed Locke and the romantic side that followed Rousseau. The former he lauds as culminating in liberalism and logical positivism. The latter he argues culminated in Nazism. True. There was also the political and economical context that allowed the Nazis the opportunity to capitalise on and build on those sentiments: the humiliation of defeat in WW1 with the exorbitant reparations, the recession of the Weimar Republic, the liberal German leadership allying with the violent ultranationalist Freikorps against the Communists. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 21, 2020 0:01:37 GMT
TBH, I don't remember Russell arguing this It's the narrative of his History of Western Philosophy - that after Descartes, philosophy largely split into two branches: the analytical side that followed Locke and the romantic side that followed Rousseau. The former he lauds as culminating in liberalism and logical positivism. The latter he argues culminated in Nazism. I remember the "two branches" narrative, but I don't remember him explicitly blaming the rise of Naziism on Nietzsche et al., though I can imagine thinking that he said the Nazi's were sympathetic to many of Nietzsche's ideas. You remember what chapter that was in?
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on May 21, 2020 0:33:15 GMT
eight bells and all is well
the centerpiece
of
our neighborhood
goes off every
night
precisely
as it should
at eight o'clock
responses
to a
seismic shock
heard 'round the world.
pots and pans
like
sousa bands
echoing
endless thanks
to those
who risk it all.
as i sit
like a china doll
secluded
from
the brawl
these hero's now
find
commonplace.
sjw 05/20/2020 inspired at this very moment in time by the myriad of doctors, nurses, care givers and workers heeding the call.
from the 'benevolent series' of poems
|
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on May 22, 2020 22:49:36 GMT
You remember what chapter that was in? From the chapter "Locke's Influence" From the chapter "Currents of Thought in the 19th Century": It seems my faulty memory oversimplified slightly, but he definitely posits Hitler as a philosophical successor to Nietzsche. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 23, 2020 0:10:14 GMT
You remember what chapter that was in? From the chapter "Locke's Influence" From the chapter "Currents of Thought in the 19th Century": It seems my faulty memory oversimplified slightly, but he definitely posits Hitler as a philosophical successor to Nietzsche. I may just have to read the whole thing because my faulty memory must've nixed these sections from my head and even reading them here I find it difficult to make sense of them. I especially wonder how Nietzsche and Hitler get categorized as "soft-hearted." The latter quote makes a bit more sense, though I still think it's a bit silly to link movements and schools of philosophy to political movements and revolutions. Sometimes they're intertwined, but it definitely simplifies a great deal to think that one simply leads to another.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on May 23, 2020 4:13:19 GMT
I may just have to read the whole thing because my faulty memory must've nixed these sections from my head and even reading them here I find it difficult to make sense of them. I especially wonder how Nietzsche and Hitler get categorized as "soft-hearted." I think by "soft-hearted", he means appealing to emotion rather than "hard-headed" logic. Though if so, not sure that's a very accurate way of viewing these strains either (if strains they be). Marx for instance, while very logical in his arguments, writes in quite an emotional way. I agree. It's actually a pretty Hegelian approach to history to think it's shaped primarily by competing intellectual ideas rather than more material concerns. Which is a bit strange given Russell doesn't speak all that highly of Hegel in the book. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on May 23, 2020 8:35:14 GMT
All I know of him is....That Which Does Not Kill Us Makes Us Stronger. That is thanks to Conan The Barbarian - 82' though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 24, 2020 0:13:18 GMT
I may just have to read the whole thing because my faulty memory must've nixed these sections from my head and even reading them here I find it difficult to make sense of them. I especially wonder how Nietzsche and Hitler get categorized as "soft-hearted." I think by "soft-hearted", he means appealing to emotion rather than "hard-headed" logic. Though if so, not sure that's a very accurate way of viewing these strains either (if strains they be). Marx for instance, while very logical in his arguments, writes in quite an emotional way. I agree. It's actually a pretty Hegelian approach to history to think it's shaped primarily by competing intellectual ideas rather than more material concerns. Which is a bit strange given Russell doesn't speak all that highly of Hegel in the book. Your distinction makes sense, though it still sounds kinda funny given the modern usage of those terms. I do think there's an aspect of history that's about competing ideas, but it's not always the same competing ideas as in philosophy; and even when it does involve philosophy it's often in a very different (simplified, modified) form. Like, I don't mind people arguing how Marx influenced various communist regimes, or how Rand has influenced libertarians, but Nietzsche? That's more of a stretch.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on May 24, 2020 10:07:43 GMT
but Nietzsche? That's more of a stretch. I don't find it inconceivable that Nietzsche could have influenced Hitler's thoughts. But the way Hitler interpreted him, the way he put across his interpretation to the people, and how well received it was, was mostly due to the material conditions. Had Nietzsche (or for that matter, Hitler) never been born, I imagine Germany would still have fallen into fascism. It might have looked slightly different perhaps, maybe some of the terminology would have changed, maybe the people would have been slightly more or less receptive to it, but functionally I don't think it would have been much different. |
|
