“Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind.”
For anyone intrigued by this, the entire essay is worth reading if you have time. It puts the list into context of his anti-war sentiments. It was originally published in New York Magazine in 1951 (available through the NYTimes Time Machine).
I have come to notice that every time I come here to read the posts there is a feeling of home that visits me. a feeling I have longed for for so long. I am grateful that my way has lead me here. I must be doing something right. Thank you for being here and triggering in me a sense of belonging and hope. "All my life has been a long slow knife ..." but now it appears that things might turn out well after all. Did I mention? Thank you for being here!
“Bertrand Russell proposed colour-coded “procreation tickets” to prevent the elite’s gene pool being diluted by inferior stock, while Bernard Shaw insisted that “the only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialisation of the selective breeding of man”, suggesting that defectives could be dealt with in a “lethal chamber”.
What's your point, dude? Intellectuals had some crazy ideas, what does that have to do with the post? Anyways, as one writer reminded us:
"In fact Russell came to his views in dialogue with the dominant scientific and
political communities of his day. Russell’s position was the logical consequence
of his fear of the rise of State intervention in society and the erosion of individual rights. When put into proper historical context, it is clear that it was
Russell’s engagement with early twentieth-century politics and science, not
personal or psychological demons, that was the motive force behind his views
I don’t have a point, I was simply demonstrating a different aspect to Russell’s character that others might not be aware of. It in no way detracts from his work nor his undeniable intelligence. I leave to the individual to do with the information what they see fit. But I think it’s important to have a balanced view of these people because they shape our society in subtle and not so subtle ways.
Well, I don't post too many saints on this site. Everyone here is so-called flawed. That's where the highest form of art comes from. In the words of Camille Paglio:
“Great art has often been made by bad people. So what? Expecting the artist to be a good person was a sentimental canard of Victorian moralism, rejected by the “art for art’s sake” movement led by Charles Baudelaire and Oscar Wilde.”
For anyone intrigued by this, the entire essay is worth reading if you have time. It puts the list into context of his anti-war sentiments. It was originally published in New York Magazine in 1951 (available through the NYTimes Time Machine).
Words for our time.
Thanks for sharing. Quite insightful.
We Americans need to read this often, just now...
We've needed it for a long time! Especially the last five years.
Wwhen I was about 10, I wrote to Bertrand Russell, and he wrote me back.
Wow! That's amazing (and impressive!).
Advice that was good then turned timeless.
Love this one.
Wonderful
I have come to notice that every time I come here to read the posts there is a feeling of home that visits me. a feeling I have longed for for so long. I am grateful that my way has lead me here. I must be doing something right. Thank you for being here and triggering in me a sense of belonging and hope. "All my life has been a long slow knife ..." but now it appears that things might turn out well after all. Did I mention? Thank you for being here!
Thank you so much for your kind words. I'm really glad you're here too!
=)
Can I add ten more?
“Bertrand Russell proposed colour-coded “procreation tickets” to prevent the elite’s gene pool being diluted by inferior stock, while Bernard Shaw insisted that “the only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialisation of the selective breeding of man”, suggesting that defectives could be dealt with in a “lethal chamber”.
https://bylinetimes.com/2020/02/17/eugenics-and-the-intellectuals/
What's your point, dude? Intellectuals had some crazy ideas, what does that have to do with the post? Anyways, as one writer reminded us:
"In fact Russell came to his views in dialogue with the dominant scientific and
political communities of his day. Russell’s position was the logical consequence
of his fear of the rise of State intervention in society and the erosion of individual rights. When put into proper historical context, it is clear that it was
Russell’s engagement with early twentieth-century politics and science, not
personal or psychological demons, that was the motive force behind his views
on marriage and eugenics."
I don’t think of it as flawed - that would assume some moral high ground I don’t possess. I think of it as nuanced.
I don’t have a point, I was simply demonstrating a different aspect to Russell’s character that others might not be aware of. It in no way detracts from his work nor his undeniable intelligence. I leave to the individual to do with the information what they see fit. But I think it’s important to have a balanced view of these people because they shape our society in subtle and not so subtle ways.
Well, I don't post too many saints on this site. Everyone here is so-called flawed. That's where the highest form of art comes from. In the words of Camille Paglio:
“Great art has often been made by bad people. So what? Expecting the artist to be a good person was a sentimental canard of Victorian moralism, rejected by the “art for art’s sake” movement led by Charles Baudelaire and Oscar Wilde.”
Such a wise and clear-thinking man. Such appealing honesty and sincere compassion.