Bertrand Russell: In Praise of Idleness (1932)

so he proposed a nuclear first strike against russia? what an amazing person :D

Yes, Russell definitely did that and was evasive about it afterward. In the late 1940s this insanity was widespread: an entire movement of politically influential players dedicated itself to nuking the Soviet Union before it achieved the bomb and (so the argument went) inevitably used it on us. Von Neumann was another prominent advocate ("If you say bomb them tomorrow, I say why not today? If you say do it at five o'clock I say why not one o'clock?") Many hawkish military leaders (e.g. Curtis Lemay) pushed strongly for it, though others (such as Eisenhower, IIRC) had the wisdom to be appalled by the idea. Thankfully Truman refused. [1]

I got all this from William Poundstone's book on the Prisoner's Dilemma. It's been years since I read it, so corrections on details are welcome.

That is the climate that was satirized in Dr Strangelove.

It was sordid on Russell's part to agitate for nuclear strikes, but everyone makes mistakes and everyone is subject to social climate. What is arguably worse is that once the insanity had passed, he refused to own up to it fair and square and just say "we were mad, and thank goodness it didn't happen". Perhaps that is what a world reputation as a moral authority does to the ego. I remember doing a double-take when I first read about this and wondering why it is so little known. If Barry Bonds deserves an asterisk beside his name in the record books then surely so does Bertie.

[1] Contemporary analogs left as an exercise to the reader.

Gödel's incompleteness theorem does not imply that NOTHING can be objectively true or false.

"If he merely puts his savings in a stocking, like the proverbial French peasant, it is obvious that they do not give employment."

What is "obvious" to Bertrand Russell is bad economics.

When the peasant puts his money in a stocking, he causes a slight deflation, so prices decrease, which increases the value of everyone else's money. So everyone else effectively has more to spend, if they want to.

However, everyone else would be prudent to assume that the peasant will eventually spend his money, which will correspondingly cause prices to rise again.

It might seem that an earlier gain is offset by a later loss.

But, those who benefit from the slight deflation can choose to invest the increased value of their monetary holdings into industry. At a later time, when the peasant decides to spend his money, the products of that industry will be ready for purchase.

Thus, with nothing more than surplus cash and a stocking, the peasant has driven investment in industry, productive employment, and long-term growth in the wealth of society, the benefits of which he has foregone since he chose not to seek a return of interest on his savings.

Honestly I think it's neurochemistry.

Things cause stress. Stress hormones float around in your brain "motivating" you. This isn't real motivation, it's stress-based motivation.

Exercise in my experience is the best cure to this stress condition. Unfortunately exercise tends to leave you tired. The other things that can help it pass are pleasurable, simple things. Video games, TV, reading a book you've read before, socializing in a comfortable environment. The exercise seems to remove that stress, while the rest just helps you not accumulate it while you take your mind off of other things.

It's not until that stress has passed that you get the clear head that lets you want to do something creative.

In the future, maybe when you feel that you aren't being creative, instead of trying to do more, just try to exercise, have a glass of wine, play some video games, and see if it happens again. Maybe go to bed early.