Live data from Hacker News

Bertrand Russell: In Praise of Idleness (1932)

zpub.com

111–120 of 126 posts

Re: Bertrand Russell: In Praise of Idleness (1932)

#111
post #64

There are a number of beautiful places in the United States where it is possible for a person to subsist quite luxuriously on $1200/mo and preserve the ability to throw parties for friends, buy books and tools, etc. As of January a person with such income will have free Medicare in Oregon. "Fuck You" money is an illusion that keeps you working. The mind loves to believe that having enough of some external thing will…

Commenting so i remember yours.

Re: Bertrand Russell: In Praise of Idleness (1932)

#112
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a very approachable view of Russel's thoughts and work, you can try reading his own writing: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/author/355 My personal favourite so far has been 'Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays' with 'Analysis of Mind' currently at the top of my reading queue. Not everything he did was like reading 'Principia Mathematica' and his writing is very open, readable and eloquent.

I liked a bunch of the essays I read by him, and loved "A History of Western Philosophy". I'm well aware (and felt his writing made it obvious enough) that it is not necessarily a 'accurate' history of philosophy, but it was a great book with a great approach.

What it lacks in accuracy it makes up for in entertainment.

Re: Bertrand Russell: In Praise of Idleness (1932)

#113

The method of a leisure class without duties was, however, extraordinarily wasteful. None of the members of the class had to be taught to be industrious, and the class as a whole was not exceptionally intelligent. The class might produce one Darwin, but against him had to be set tens of thousands of country gentlemen who never thought of anything more intelligent than fox-hunting and punishing poachers. I'm down. We…

Well, apart from that last fictional character who has arguably brought more harm than good through his ideas (and arguably through them being misinterpreted), I'm all down with that.

Actually, Jesus himself isn't fictional and his existence is pretty much agreed upon as a historical fact.[1]

It's the details of his activities in the New Testament and various Gospels that are hotly debated.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus (use this as a starting point for further citations..)

/pedant mode off.

Re: Bertrand Russell: In Praise of Idleness (1932)

#114
post #64

There are a number of beautiful places in the United States where it is possible for a person to subsist quite luxuriously on $1200/mo and preserve the ability to throw parties for friends, buy books and tools, etc. As of January a person with such income will have free Medicare in Oregon. "Fuck You" money is an illusion that keeps you working. The mind loves to believe that having enough of some external thing will…

yea, but you still need $360k or so to be able to withdraw $1200/month forever without worry. That's still a decent chunk of change. I guess you can save it in 5 years, but if you don't like working those 5 years will be hellaciously long

How are you investing $360k to make $1200/month forever without worry?

Re: Bertrand Russell: In Praise of Idleness (1932)

#115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meh. The world has suffered enough from "the classic intellectual type with strong affections for humanity in the abstract and the people around him not so much". I'd much rather listen to someone who's attached to others and behaves decently towards them. (I've got a particular bias against Gandhi for what that so-called "moral paragon" famously said about the Holocaust.)

For others who are curious about the Gandhi reference, here's what I dug up: "“Hitler,” Gandhi solemnly affirmed, “killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. I believe in hara-kiri. I do not believe in its militaristic connotations, but it is a heroic method.” “You thin…

Yes, basically, that. It kind of indicates that he believed Jewish lives are worth so little that we should have pointlessly thrown away millions of them for publicity.

Edit: It's questionable whether this was something specific he had against Jews or not. Frankly, I'm not even sure whether an anti-Semite or an anti-humanist is morally superior.

Re: Bertrand Russell: In Praise of Idleness (1932)

#116
post #76
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something happened to me yesterday that I haven't quite had the time to figure out. I'm normally the introverted "stay at home and relax" type, at least during the week. I frequently want to get home from work as early as possible to play video games, play music, or read. The only problem I've had lately is I've had little motivation to do the creative parts (e.g. creating music or programming something). But last ni…

I think momentum plays a big part. That goes both ways in creative pursuits of getting things "done" or at least moving forward on projects, as well as stagnating. The more time you "I'll do it later" on something, the easier it becomes, etc. The book "Art of War" while some "hippie'esque"'ness breaks down "resistance" to getting to creative pursuits.

I think you might mean "The War of Art," which is a great motivational book. The "Art of War" is good too, but would be tough to classify as "hippie'esque."

Re: Bertrand Russell: In Praise of Idleness (1932)

#117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For others who are curious about the Gandhi reference, here's what I dug up: "“Hitler,” Gandhi solemnly affirmed, “killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. I believe in hara-kiri. I do not believe in its militaristic connotations, but it is a heroic method.” “You thin…

Yes, basically, that. It kind of indicates that he believed Jewish lives are worth so little that we should have pointlessly thrown away millions of them for publicity . Edit: It's questionable whether this was something specific he had against Jews or not. Frankly, I'm not even sure whether an anti-Semite or an anti-humanist is morally superior.

No, he wasn't saying that "we should have pointlessly thrown away" any of them. He was saying that the Jews should have sacrificed themselves to make a point, in something like the same way as many of Gandhi's followers put themselves in danger to make a point, and Gandhi himself went on (life-threatening) hunger strike to make a point. And he was saying that the end result would likely have been the loss of fewer Jewish lives.

There is a big difference between "It would be a noble and also an effective thing for group X to sacrifice themselves" and "Other people should sacrifice group X", and it seems very clear that Gandhi was saying the first of those and not the second, and that he was advocating that they should do the same kind of thing as he did himself.

Now, for the avoidance of doubt, I think (1) he was wrong about this and (2) there's still something a bit indecent about saying "those people should have sacrificed themselves". But I don't see anything anti-Semitic, or anti-humanistic, in this, nor do I think he was saying that Jewish lives were worth little in absolute terms or relative to others. He was saying that in the face of a powerful oppressor self-sacrifice is both an effective tool and a noble thing to do.

Re: Bertrand Russell: In Praise of Idleness (1932)

#118
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, basically, that. It kind of indicates that he believed Jewish lives are worth so little that we should have pointlessly thrown away millions of them for publicity . Edit: It's questionable whether this was something specific he had against Jews or not. Frankly, I'm not even sure whether an anti-Semite or an anti-humanist is morally superior.

No, he wasn't saying that "we should have pointlessly thrown away" any of them. He was saying that the Jews should have sacrificed themselves to make a point, in something like the same way as many of Gandhi's followers put themselves in danger to make a point, and Gandhi himself went on (life-threatening) hunger strike to make a point. And he was saying that the end result would likely have been the loss of fewer Je…

Ah. The dispute here is that I (along with most Jews nowadays) simply do not believe that self-sacrifice is effective or noble. The Holocaust was, in fact, our single biggest lesson ever in precisely that. From our perspective, self-sacrifice is anti-humanistic, it's a simple murder: you kill yourself, save nobody else, and win nothing for it but the sympathy of future generations -- hopefully.

I mean, for that matter, compare how many Holocaust victims did fight back versus those who didn't. Since the vast majority didn't fight back, what could they have done to make their deaths into an effective "martyrdom"?

Re: Bertrand Russell: In Praise of Idleness (1932)

#119
post #83
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

Looking at http://www.economist.com/node/699582/print?Story_ID=699582 it seems to be open to some doubt whether Russell was actually advocating a nuclear first strike. (It seems clear that he was prepared to countenance one in some circumstances. That's not obviously completely unreasonable.)

After that he went on found the Pugwash conferences, be the first president of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, etc., so he can hardly be painted as a nuclear warmonger generally. As you say, "everyone makes mistakes and everyone is subject to social climate".

Could you be more explicit about how he "refused to own up to it"? I mean, did he deny saying the actual words he's documented as having said, or did he disagree with someone else's interpretation of them, or what?

Re: Bertrand Russell: In Praise of Idleness (1932)

#120
post #64

There are a number of beautiful places in the United States where it is possible for a person to subsist quite luxuriously on $1200/mo and preserve the ability to throw parties for friends, buy books and tools, etc. As of January a person with such income will have free Medicare in Oregon. "Fuck You" money is an illusion that keeps you working. The mind loves to believe that having enough of some external thing will…

That is my receipe as well. I live in Poland, where stuff can be hilariously cheap when living on a good "first world" contracting rate. In the last 7 years I've contracted for maybe 3.5 years total. Right now I'm about to end my last contract and have money for another 4-5 years of freedom. And my lifestyle includes eating out 1-3 per day, having a maid, brand new car, some travel. Seriously, I sometimes feel sorry for people born in rich countries (esp. living in places like NYC, London) who need to work much more than I do to maintain the same lifestyle.
Post reply on HN