Bertrand Russell (Part 1 of 6) Authority and the Individual: Social Cohesion and Human Nature
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 сер 2011
- 1948 BBC Reith Lectures
Bertrand Russell
Authority and the Individual
(Part 1) Social Cohesion and Human Nature
You may LISTEN to original samples here: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00h9...
You may READ the transcript here:
www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/...
You may DOWNLOAD the original samples here:
www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/...
My favorite Author...he is a very genuine man. We are fortunate to hear this incredible persona
Sports can be an outlet for our primitive values.
How wonderful to be able to listen this and to the remainder of the series. Thank you so very much.
Man, I cannot thank you enough for uploading these! You've saved my ass!! Thank you from Amman, Jordan!
Incredibly relevant today. And a great argument for Dungeons & Dragons.
precise explanations. it was like I was in his living room listening, an intimate lecture just for me!
Wow. Thanks so much for posting this. It's pure gold. Bertrand had a gifted insight in to all issues. He's up there with Alan Watts.
Two of the best.
inline skating and later skateboarding have unknowingly provided for me the solution to the problem of danger vs security in civilised life raised in this talk. its a great thing to have. team sports like football and basketball are also a good thing
Thanks for uploading!
Great upload!
well done you for uploading this!
when BBC was my preferred broadcast
Thank you very much for this!
23:00 This is the subtext in the movie "Fight Club".
"Men of initiative" need to come together in our shared victories for all humanity. We're clearly having them.
Had a record "Bertrand Russell Speaks" in high school and J.C. He argued me into being a philospher as a junior...Neglecting, all the while to every mention the difficulty of ever making a living from it. Wonder of a talker...I am suprized more comedians don't do him.
He is wonderful. May those of savage nature only praise his name before departing.
Russell struggled with the ideas of superiority and entitlement throughout his life. These ideas are closely related with eugenics and social evolution. In this work, Authority and the Individual, he says something like "it is imperative the best brains not be wasted", but who exactly are the "best brains", and how exactly can we instruct them through a harmonious development?
He also was a devout socialist/anarchist, but enjoyed a lavish, bourgeois lifestyle, and was essentially aristocratic.
In other words he was a hypocrite and a eugenics proponent.
Keep in mind that much of the anthropological and archaeological evidence Russell uses is outdated, but he still expresses remarkable insight. And after all, seventy years from now it's certain that our present understanding of the archaeology and anthropology of early humanity will also be outdated.
It is my belief that if we introduced Mr. Russell to students starting in the 3rd to 4th grade and continued his talks.. though out their Jr and Sr high school years into their college years... we would change the whole of society forever. I can assure you, if you ask... 1,000 Americans between the ages of 10 years old to 30 years old, hardly a 1 would have any idea who he was... nor could they even slightly give us a single sentence.... of enlightenment. I am not judging nor belittling.. I am simply making a statement I believe to be factual!
Yes, I agree. One particularly striking book of Russell's is his 1953 "The Impact of Science on Society". He said nothing different on eugenics, the social hierarchy, and evolution than Huxley, who in turn claimed he was inspired by H. G. Wells. The philosophy is basically that of Nietzsche or Hitler; that nothing is better for humans than, well, progress...and that we'll always be organized by leaders.
Brilliant podcast thanks for the upload! Makes me very proud to be a Russell, he had such incredible foresight and social understanding.
A relation?
letto immense volte oggi certamente vi sono scienziati 10 volte piu competenti e grandi ma fa parte della storia della scienza ed è comunque utile studiare e leggere i loro pensieri sebbene sia stato ampiamente superato ma parliamo di epoche storiche diverse.
Enslavement to the domesticated mind, obedience to the surviving mind, freedom to the conditioned mind , freedom & existence to the struggling mind 😥
Bertrand Russell (Part 1 of 6) Authority and the Individual: Social Cohe...
My only regret is finding out so late, if i could take back every positive comment i posted i would, This are the kind of "Scientists" people fear, there are the kind of "men" who inspired the generation today are positioned as our "leaders", This are the main Architects of the backwards world we have today, Ayn Rand, Huxley, Russell, powerful minds and very weak souls.. and i say that as an atheist myself.
Reason and logic ; ' Psychoanalysis ', learning the how's of the present and living in reality for Civilization .
It kills me how prescient this is. For the first time in a generation it is possible to hear similar povs on Fox and MSNBC (due to the war in Ukraine).
This didn't age well, as Fox came to its nature in supporting white fascists of Russia and oligarchs of Putin.
@@e.h.5680 Yeah, maybe. But things seem a little less grim now. Rupert Murdoch appears to have had enough of Trump. Eighteen Republicans voted with democrats to support Ukraine. At some point Murdoch may pull the rug out from under Putin Puppet Tucker Carlson.
@@tombombadyl4535 Hope that's the case.
Very good
Russell would have loved the concept of video games.
The sarcasm is strong in this one
+gamesguru I think, on the contrary, Russell's call for competition that is not injurious is exactly what computer games are best at providing.
Tis presumptuous to assume hours of simulated first-person violence has no effect on character, when a 30 second superbowl ad has the power-value to make us flock en masse to buy doritos.
gamesguru Really, I don't believe I've ever purchased Doritos... maybe some are immune to mind control? Or maybe people wanted the Doritos and were reminded.
In any case, I'd hope you'd admit that compared to going out and killing people, simulating this in video games is at least a lesser harm.
+gamesguru What sarcasm? This lecture suggests that Russell would have been a genuine fan of people using violent video games to simulate war and get out their instincts.
A set of goals is innocent, but not as it becomes a set of ideas. In ancient times, tribes hoped to reduce food shortages, casualties in war, disease, and inner-turmoil. However, they faced unforeseen difficulties along the way. In the modern world, as Russell suggested, our skill has placed greater/nobler feats within our reach. We can hope to cure diseases and establish a world govt which bestows all with dignity and riches. But, still, we are humans, so there will be unforeseen difficulties.
Perhaps you're right. I was under the impression that ideology is simply a set of ideas and goals, and I didn't see how or why that would be avoided. You seem to be suggesting ideology is a bit more specific than that though, so there's a good chance I would be against ideology too if I had a better understanding of it.
Yeah, just because your parents didn't get along, and no one else felt the need to step in, doesn't mean everyone neglects everyone. It just means you got a raw deal. Plus, it can't be too constructive to complain about your past on the internet.
The reference he makes regarding humans nowadays leading a boring unfulfiling life, compared to thousands of years ago when man had to hunt and all the rest of it, explains why so many of us, are depressed, unsatisifed by life, spending money on things we dont need, gambling, drinking. Ive often thought this myself, and it goes hand in hand with the saying, "man must work". Ofcourse, with no many alienating jobs out there, be it the factory worker taking things off a conveyer belt, or a road sweeper...these things are meaningless and its no wonder people get depressed and see no way out, I believe Adam Smith touched on the alienation issue when talking about specialisation on his infamous pin making example. Much better to be amongst an unsettled life full of dangers and such. I often see this with people that are homeless, although most would easily give it up for a steady homelife, there are others who find it addictive on the streets as I can attest from a relative of mine who was once homeless, he always remarked how he missed it, but the comfort of a steady life has reeled him in. Do we really want to have constant technology around us, phones ringing incessantly utility, bills and all the rest of it? Obviously the evidence leads to the contrary but thats only because we have been programmed to live the modern way. I dont know about you, but when Russell touched on the primitve savagery of early man and the exciting adventures, something hit home. Modernisation has gave us a long life, comforts beyond our wildest dreams, access to medicaton, so we can live older, grow senile, crippled with arthritus, lose of sight/hearing. Modernisation has done very little for us folks, when we really think about it.
I know it has been 2 years, but your comment has really resonated with me. It reminds me of a major philosophical issue that I have been pondering on for quite some time, especially these days. It is also the same one that is discussed in Brave New World. Is it better to live in a world full of pain, disease, problems, no access to medical care, without the benefits and securities from the existence of a state, etc., but with the discovery of what it means to be human and for life to feel more meaningful, or to live in a seemingly perfect world where nobody ages, gets sick because of great medical care, everything already provided by the state, faces other humanly problems like negative emotions, etc., but everyone is a slave to society and the state and life totally meaningless because everything is already predestined for people? I still don't know the answer to this question. I would like to say that John in Brave New World was right about how people should live, and theoretically he is right, but in reality, nobody in that sort of world would want to give up their comfortable, meaningless existence to face the uncertainties and issues of living a real life and being human, even if through these difficulties one becomes a better person. Even Bertrand Russell stated in "The Impact of Science on Society" that even if a poor man in some Third World country was more free as a person and had fewer dependencies on the structures of society (because there are none or the few are unreliable where he lives), very few, if any, people from a first world country (even though more enslaved to the state because of the increased benefits that are given to people) would desire to exchange places with him, because the lifestyle is harsher and the uncertainty and concerns of living through a bad harvest, for example, would mean life and death. In essence, it is a very complicated problem, but it is interesting to look at it from both sides. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
In spite of all his fine talk about eugenics/depopulation, and his lifelong battle with depression, he apparently felt he was fit enough to father more children than he recommended his neighbor father. He gave birth to a schizophrenic son, who had some sick children. My heart goes out to everyone with a mental illness, but it is inconsistent with mainstream eugenics to bring into this world diseased people. Eugenics usually aims to eliminate illness and promote physical and mental strength.
Bertrand Russell, like all human beings, was capable of bigotry and/or error. He was a flawed man, just like every man (or woman) that ever lived. It is interesting to see that so many people take such a black and white position of him. They either worship him as an infallible, brilliant, and amazing man or reject his intellect as elitist and disturbed. I would imagine that the truth of who he was lies somewhere in between those extremes. This is the attitude that should be taken of all public figures. Be critical of their ideas, and sift the good from the bad. Of course, conclusions of that sort are all subjective to the reader/listener, but the process must be emphasized.
I don't think people worship him but see him as an enlightened thinker and courageous for standing up to religion among other things. Of course, you're entirely right, one should never stop being critical, even of people they have enormous respect for.
A product of his time. An exceptional product
You do Bertrand Russell a disservice with comments that could apply to almost anybody or anything. It makes me wonder if this is a generic posting you apply everywhere. Or whether you work on generic postings to see which gets the most positive replies.
Ivor O'Connor Actually, this was mainly in response to the large number of comments I saw flaming him both here and on other videos, but I wanted to be fair and address both sides of that spectrum. I'm a pretty big fan of Bertrand Russell and I recommend that anyone interested in philosophy read his works.
And yes, this does apply to anyone. It is always good to consider all the aspects of people's lives and thoughts, understand perhaps why they thought those things as it pertained to the time in which they lived, etc., and judge them as fairly as possible.
Nothing I ever post is an attempt to receive replies, positive or negative, but believe what you want.
Hi Ivor, did you mean my comment or Josh's? If you mean me, I am simply agreeing with the original post by Solafein :) In other news, I'm glad you rebel against generic posts. The internet would be so much poorer if everyone didn't thoroughly think through their comments
In his "History of Western Philosophy", he offers such a shallow and tender critique of Plato's enlightened despot, that one cannot help but feel that Russell actually agrees with Plato and sees himself as a one of his "philosopher kings".
And yes, he doesn't show a deep understanding of what he means by the words "savage instincts", he just falls back on it to explain bad behaviors (typically in others, but on rare occasion, in himself).
Again your criticism fails and Bertrand is a "philosopher King" plus wrote one of the greatest books on mathematics ever written.
Again,rather than diminish Russells effectiveness you show yourself to be an intellectual clutz with an unrestrained critical mind.
Stick to gaming.
He clearly doesn't agree with Plato there.
What I've learned is that our inability to see our own condition is about to cost us everything.
+Jackie Chase cost us everything ? who is us ? and what's everything ?
+bbababonbon..bonfire! the conflict between labor and capital. That's (almost) everything.
speak for yourself. western "culture" is a joke and produces shallow environmentally retarded nothings who are clueless beyond comprehension. y'all are emotional spiritual intellectual cripples.
@@derwentalia
Clown.
you should look up Richart Sowa. He's built and lived on at least two man-made, floating islands. They're made of soil and plants, but have bottles underneath to make the whole thing buoyant. He learned to avoid storms. But he still has to rely on society for certain bare necessities. Realistically, that's as far away from society as you can hope to get. If you can purchase your own spacecraft, maybe that's plan B. You just sound like a victim of depression; I don't think you really hate people.
Chomsky is an anarchist, like Russell, and a privileged one, like Russell. What I mean is that Russell's books were often written in a haste, and marketed to sell to the populace, rather than to appeal to the critical mind. His "History of Western Philosophy" is the best example. While amateurs find it quite amusing, it received harsh criticisms from professionals. Many people dislike the book. Regardless, it is his best seller, and was his source of income once he lost his job as a professor.
gamesguru-and who decided who the "professionals" were?
Show then another Philosopher who suggested possible solutions to society's problems. There are none.
Bertrand is unique in being an intellect who attempts to improve the world and this is unique.
Bertrand did not have to sell books to live.
I'm sorry, but I have to ask. Would you still have considered him to be a grumpy old man when he was in his 20s and 30s and 40s? Or would he be a grumpy young man then? :D
Generally this or primarily that...I see instances of kind, selfless and caring human activity, however rare it is. This reminds of Dionysius...is it better to complain about the fact that our world kind of sucks and has its flaws, or is better to just embrace the good in it? I'd like to change a lot of things about the world, and also about human psychology, but doing so is about as likely as winning the mega millions. See: wikipedia. org/wiki/Apollonian_and_Dionysian
Ideology can't be avoided, but maybe we can handle it with more care.
Plus, there will always be deviants who disagree about the means or even the goals. Consider the case of the environmental extremists: untold quantities of chemicals, plastics, and wastes are pumped into the oceans and rivers and buried in the soil. Now consider an American teenager girl: overly-concerned with her reputation at school, the brand name of her clothes, etc. Is it possible to produce agreement between these two??
One is educated enough if he haven't read Bertrand Russell what a mind
We could be a woman!
Authority control versus individual freedom.
thanks much i love bertrand
Granting modern man the facility to undertake adventure in travel, expedition and exploration, as well as in entrepreneurship, investment and in the endeavour of self reliance, are plausible replacements for the destructive effects of these driving instincts. It is the failure of our systems to free man from the shackles of financial servitude to become his own champion that destroys a man’s spirit. Because the instinct is not to seek enemies but to seek the means to survive. It is in THAT endeavour, that experience of the daily struggle to achieve security in old age, that is man’s truest driving force.
Did Carl send you guys, too?
I compare war with the primitive fight of flight instinct. Take it away, for you shall own nothing and be happy, and the instinct is extinguished, and we become pure consumers, and then the act of consumption is what gets us out of bed in the morning. And not necessarily the morning.
My parents also got a divorce when I was quite young. My extended family never really contacts me (never has). I don't know why I keep going to their funerals. I don't even want them to go to mine. I've also seen my fair share of other people's suffering, so I know where you're coming from. But pitying ourselves and sympathizing with others who share similar woes doesn't do much to improve the situation, do you agree?
Sometimes compassion can be confusing to the outsider who has difficulty grasping what it's like to care for another. Empathy requires love. Love is not a means to an end.
@@wendiesel2606 some people are psychopaths and Russel is one of them an ideology for the deranged
@@nohmehari947 Your comment is in the deranged category.
the problem is "the divorce of the economic motive from the impulses of creation and possession"?
I later writings he speaks negativly of both Eugenics and racism, specificaly asserting that there is nothing wrong with as it were. Clearly, as one would expect from any thinking person, his veiws evolved over the course of his lifetime. Arguing that he was overall a Eugenicist seems no different than arguing that he was a Heggelian.
If you're going to hate people for not being perfect angels or superhumans, you'll soon find yourself alone. I think we all need role models, and to realize no one is perfect. While Russell's philosophies are at times based on wild emotions, I still admire them for their wittiness and elegance. And even though he was a capitalist pig and a womanizer, I still respect him as a thinker.
I wouldn't retract EVERY compliment I've given Russell, but it's fair to say I've moved on to other authors.
"Capitalist pig"? What evidence do you have of that and why do you use such ugly words?
"Womanizer"? Where is your proof?
What on Earth motivates you to try to attack a person like this? You do not know Bertrand nor do you seem to gather that he wishes to bring examples of reason to the fore.
"Wild emotions"? You must be half deaf.
Rather than expressing a criticism you have demonstrated a huge hole in your intellect and no understanding that kindliness is the best path to take.
Your thinking is to narrow if you put Russel as a capitalist pig characterization, he was known Georgist when young and he did mention later in his life that socialism is the only hope of mankind...
Womanizer is fair perhaps, but the capitalist pig thing is a bizarre characterization of Russell.
Chomsky makes more compromises than he claims to. He opposes trusts for the rich and proposes progressive taxes, yet has $2 million in trusts and has a spotty tax record. I don't want to go into specifics, so see this eye-opener: hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6222
I don't think, as a subsistence worker, you are guilty of hiding much money. That $10,000 in your bank account may seem greedy, but compared to what the top 1% hoards away, it's nothing.
Then what is it which enables you to purchase goods produced 30000 km away from your abode? Surely, it must be an economy based upon social cohesion, however imperfect we may judge such cohesion to be.
Calling me a Jew made my day, thanks for that.
Don't you think you would have been a happier and more fulfilled individual were you raised in a better home?
It's too bad this man didn't live to be here and now, because he would have considered the biochemical mechanisms we discovered since he died, and the ones we continue to discover. I may not have the science yet to back it up, but I am nearly certain that biochemistry holds an answer for why people desire "thrilling" experiences. It's not only an emotional reason: that's the surface layer reason. We seek thrilling, possibly societally abhorrent behavior, because on a biochemical level the body is tracking levels of neurotransmitters.
Are you feeling sad and depressed too much of the time? It's because your body's system is keeping score of serotonin levels, and it says you're too low. So you go do something thrilling (either attempt suicide or some other thrilling behavior), and you get a massive spike in serotonin or other neurotransmitters. Down to a biochemical level, the human body is keeping tally. Scientists are close to understanding it, and soon we will be able to modify/modulate the score by our own will. We already take control of it with medications, but I mean it will be a more widespread solution than medications.
You can cry all you like about "SSRI bad" but I don't really care. My goal is a utilitarian utopia.
!
What a cranium
The BBC at its best. Its love of the natural world and unparalleled documentation of it, as well as its people's work producing pioneering programmes under David Attenborough's stewardship, should impel a new honesty in political reporting (since Britain's maps are to be radically redrawn by a seething climate and furious oceans of acid very shortly, people be damned to starve and suffer -- so let's at least take a good old proper journalistic look at who sunk our battleships, as it were).
Personality politics needs to be eliminated entirely. Back to the po-faced black and white days of more moderate, more respectable-sounding state propaganda, when the news details were delivered with a reassuringly drab plainness, no salesman's gloss or special vocabulary, an absolute lack of titillation and sophistication, with words carefully selected to enlighten, not deceive, and enunciated crisply in an understandable narrative, neither smart nor self-aware but a plain and objective account to convey data to an inquiring General Public-
-Versus today's 24-hour, whizzy-light, corporate, music-pumping, twitter-feedbacked, coke-injected rave party of salacious bloody drama masquerading as news: celebrity fluff pieces; unfathomable stories of global atrocities said to have nothing to do with our own governments being wicked criminals; economic misery spreading up the capital food chain, the middle classes feeling empathy coming back (they watched the vulnerable perish and said nothing; now they know how they too are regarded as _trash_ by the corporate power elites and are going to suffer horribly too); myriad problems with local services; present and future housing crises; price shocks; weather shocks; infrastructure takedown; market chaos; death-dealing drama nonstop.
Human stress fatigue is perhaps a new mental illness the American psychiatrists will add to their telephone-book-sized library of mental health problems. The epidemics of legalized narcotic abuse in Western societies make vast sums of money for the same groups of investors that created social conditions that caused a normal, healthy human response of mental sickness to start with -- a secure future not possible, mind goes into existential shock and despair. Like eating poison mushrooms makes you vomit, they force more into your food with a for-profit prescription of antiemetic pills, all the while telling you that you are wise and making good free choices in getting help for your various categories of probably very expensive insanity. Pull up a chair while the manual is scanned; it can take some time for a $250-an-hour shrink to sort out a plan for you; less cost is the corporate mental nutcase diagnostic bot from amazon everything corporation. You can download that to your personal data device for an annual ongoing usage fee; its AI algorithms are self-learning and are said to have helped many take the last steps to eternal peace and happiness in front of a train or bus. Be brave; be amazon. Oh what guys ...
Social cohesion has never been necessary for survival. Authority and the will it imposes only gives you the illusion that it is, while convincing you any alternative to a society is ludicrous. On the contrary, it is not ludicrous, it is merely not lucrative and takes away from the powers that be.
An invasion from Mars would solve all our petty problems.
Gosh darn it. Wasted my time reading the book before finding this.
???
we are all born into the capitalist system. We all have to make compromises. I think it's definitely ok to argue against capitalism while being a capitalist yourself. it may seem pretty hypocritical but i mean we are just forced to live in this system. Myself i am forced to work to live, that's part of the capatalist system. Does that make me a hypocrite for arguing against it? Chomsky worked at MIT, an institution that was vital in state capitalism. It created the internet.
MIT did not create the internet. Al Gore invented the internet /s Actually it was DARPA-or I believe, at the time, DARPA
Why don't you move to China? I think you will find happiness there. Think about it.
Surely sports is a good outlet for these tribal instincts? Do you think international games help make wars less likely?
+dochmbi Very interesting question!! I think you are right: much anger is diverted through sports competitions. It's practically bloodless war, and the fans love it. I'm thinking the Colosseum served a similar function: the more violence and savageness released on something innocent, the less is pent up or remains to take out in a regrettable way. (Not saying the Colosseum was bloodless, just better than full scale war!)
But I think it depends on external factors, forces, or tides: obviously Iraq had little choice in the war against the USA (or if you prefer to hold Iraq accountable, the USA had no choice in the matter), the food harvest (well it was historically a concern, not so much today), cultural factors, the spirit of the times, and propaganda. So to speak, war is most likely when the peasants are least content (ripe for revolution).
I also think for more intelligent, nerdy, not herdy people, like high functioning autistics, something like science, or some intellectual pursuit is a better outlet.
Tis a good point and I think that the US collegiate games system is one thing we Brits could gain much were we to emulate that. I have to say, regrettably, that the tribal instincts displayed by England fans abroad historically shows, however, that even this healthy pursuit can degenerate into a masculine free for all, whereby a fight between fans can seem as important to some fans as the on pitch action.
It's not that long ago that knights were strapping their spurs on and kicking ass on a regular basis, while in the East it seems that all kinds of thuggery was the norm. Just don't think we are there yet as a species. We are still evolving.
I'm glad you picked up on that peripheral issue ; however, 'we Brits...kicking ~'ass''? I say Josie!
What? "War" is the only business that will NEVER die...until either humanity disappears, or Capitalism is extirpated.
How about a capitalistic world government? Sounds harmonious. Rolls off the tongue even... But you do have a point about sports arenas the public opinion. The ones who go to war aren't the public, they just go along with it. High ranking officials pull the strings. Gotta have that world gov't accountability Russell was preachin'
I'm not convinced that everyone participating in the comment section below, actually possesses the ability to engage in logical, intelligent thought. Please find another video to soil.
@blistere...I've a grand idea. GFY
I'm aware and disappointed by his view of eugenics. But I'm curious about why you bring up his views of social hierarchy. What about it disturbs you? What about am I missing?
His references to 'savages' also greatly irks me.
As far as I can see, all of Russell's racist and Eugenicist writings are concentrated around the 1920's and 1930's, a time when such veiws were common.
i believe that in the British world and the Commonwealth we all pay for our mistakes sooner or later; like for our today's errors some people started paying now; other's will follow soon.Were do you see corruption unchallenged? .Was the man a criminal or a communist with conscious mind to even kill his own family?Well come friend tell you seem to know sutch a mind.
Don't make me have to call the white-coats.
well,is not about hating everyone, im not talking about being prefect im talking about not being a mass murderer concealed as an intellectual authority, i still agree with much he said, but had he given the chance .. he would have "erased" much of our population. that's something to despise. and i effectively do. no middle ground wen comes to one's moral integrity. that's the difference between atheist and theist, we do not compromise our moral integrity no mater Who says so.
I think that there are so many flaws with this theory
Except there's no great record of its success. The idea of realism has made about as much headway as that of altruism, both of them being practically unexplored. For example: Nietzsche saw both ideas as shallow and dishonest.
And to leave you with the general flavor responsible for my distaste for ideology, please enjoy the following quote:
"There is nothing so mistaken and foolhardy and embarrassing as a man who thinks he can save the world or redeem mankind through his gospels." ~Unknown
Passivity is not a good weapon for survival
But it is mainly a response. But if it became organised, like lying flat in China, it could be a weapon for revolution. An election in a democracy is an act of revolution. Or potential revolution.
it's hard to understand the understanding of someone who does not realize that his origin was human and not ape....man was not a mutation from an ape predecessor, I guess that is why some of us resort to violence, murder, looting and other disgusting habits because their instinct is primitive such as the ape..
Russell is on to something when he says that we shouldn't remove danger and competition in our society. However, he failed to provide a constructive way to use these evolutionary behaviors.
The exploration of space would be a good drive for humanity. There is ample room for competition and danger in space. And unlike war, this would advance humanity. It would provide more room and resources for humans to thrive.
This brings me to what I dislike about Russell. He replaced religion with the government. Trading one evil for another is not progress. We will never explore the stars while under the thumb of the government. The government has no incentives to send people on other planets because it has no control and cannot use people when they are out of its reach.
Thus, the only logical conclusion is that we must evolve past the need for government.
My friend, I by no means intent to discourage people from reading Russel's work, i just wish people will go beyond his "Atheistic Geniality" and find out about his many prejudices about our species, his defense of Eugenics, Depopulation and Contempt for anyone not that "brilliant".. in the end he was just an insecure, grumpy old man. but that's my opinion, you should formulate your own. :)
If hating eugenics, maybe commenting on an anti-eugenics video would necessitate less masochism.
:)
Not with humans. The strong still oppress the weak, like some kind of sick, ruthless, overly-competitive game. I sadly don't see this coming to an end anytime soon.
I don't know of any other intelligent, technological civilizations, so I don't know whether or not any exist which have adopted socialist tendencies.
I make a point of not watching and certainly not buying any of the CRAP advertised in You Tube which interrupts the clips or videos. Capitalism including the advertising lies and bullshit is a true pain in the ass.
Sarcasm? Insanity? Or a tolerant attitude, wide interests, with a penetrating knowledge of the history of religion? In any case, if you really understand the cycles which describe human history, I find it hard to believe that you would go to such a considerable extent to defend such vain and optimistic things as acceptance of the Israelites or pity for the Jews. If you're as wise as you're portraying yourself to be, I suggest you show your wisdom by agreeing that ideologies solve few problems.
More BBC audio documentaries and less blah, blah, blah
Bangkok Johnny
Nonsense
all about THE TRUMP AFFAIRS & 1492 🤔 and the sitcom war🙄🤑🤑🤑 street presidential elections 😥
Delphi telecomputing not emotional benefits ladder owned by tax evaders.
Blackmail crime.
Cancer.
All in all, he was a smart guy and I respect him for that, but I think he struggled with elitism (or the idea that some people are naturally better than others), especially academic elitism. And I think a lot of his writings will show that he is very misinformed about the subject, and passionately misleading his impressionable audience.
"some people are naturally better than others" - so wait, you are saying that isn't the case? misinformed about what? contemporary political correctness falsities pushed down the throat?
Some people are naturally more competent than others
Really? You must have come out of nothing then, reared yourself, socialized with no one but yourself huh?
He was severely overrated