/lit/ - Literature

>>22780643
his only saving grace is that he isn't rawls

he's an anglo give him a break

>>22780643
he's right though

>>22781897
no

What's wrong with the quote?
I don't even like Russell but it seems like a pretty common sense observation

I kind of pity him
He was so intelligent but also midwitted

>>22781991
>fathers want their children to be successful and reflect well on their family
>this is bad, somehow

>>22780643
>Russell’s books should be bound in two colours…those dealing with mathematical logic in red – and all students of philosophy should read them; those dealing with ethics and politics in blue – and no one should be allowed to read them.
>Wittgenstein
Russell wasn't perfect but he had a social conscience and did try to do some good in the world. He said some dumb edgy shit, as we all have, but OP's quote is on point.

>>22782003
it is when it's done at the expense of the child's well-being

>>22782183
Oh if only he'd said: "Don't be a fucking retard."
Now that would be a useful quote. Because clearly everything can be taken to levels of retardation. Like quotes, by Russell.

>>22782003
That's not the point of the quote. A father could for an altruistic purpose want his offspring to be successful for their own sake. Most do. Howevers Russell's language specifically denounces fathers who wish for their child's success only for a social "credit" implying a neglect of the child in service for an abstract benefit to the father. Now whether he was correct in the sense that this drive is fundamental in all father's is very questionable, but it's not questionable that success being the primary motivator of a parents decision making is a negative.

parents shouldn't view their children as means to an end of their own ego gratification or be personally interested in their children's success in the world. a parent should want their children's success for their children's sake -- any other parenting philosophy produces neurotic, perpetually insecure and affirmation seeking offspring

>>22782212
>Howevers Russell's language specifically denounces fathers who wish for their child's success only for a social "credit" implying a neglect of the child in service for an abstract benefit to the father.
This is the stupid point (and really speaks to why Russell's politics are complete nonsense and epitomize the milquetoast middle-class 20th century socialist). Even if a father works to see their child succeed in order to demonstrate that he's a good father he's still working to see his child succeed and his "bad" attitude towards parenthood results in a strictly positive development. Unless it's taken to the extreme of actually harming the child, of course, but for 95% of the population when he was writing this harm was far more likely to come from neglect rather than overreach. His main objection to this phenomenon is the fact that fathers are being selfish, as if being selfish is some intrinsically immoral action even when it provides tangible benefits to others.

>takes
kill yourself

>>22782257
you underestimate how common it's for children to get emotionally abused by narcissistic parents

Russell is the most pathetic example of English philosophy, and I say that as someone who dislikes the German dismissal of English philosophy. But when you have such pathetic, soulless shit as logical positivism and analytic philosophy in general being so prominent I can understand why.

>>22782257
the fact of the matter is there is a functional and manifest difference in parents who are selfishly interested in the success of their children and those that want their children to be successful for their children's sake. it's not as if the selfish party will coach the child towards these ends in the same manner as the unselfish one, will be able to otherwise play a supportive and even-handed role in the child's life, etc. selfishness doesn't exist functionally equivalent to non-selfishness producing the same kinds of children. there will be very obvious differences in how this success is achieved for the child based on the temperament and values of the parent and at what cost. your example is overly simplistic -- obviously if this selfishness was never expressed and operated in the same capacity as non-selfishness russell's objection would ring somewhat hollow here, but this is a marginal and likely completely hypothetical overly simplified case.

>>22782263
you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about if you think russell was ever a logical positvist.

>>22782266
>overly simplistic
>THE FUNDAMENTAL DEFECT IN FATHERS

>>22782274
>>22782263
>you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about if you think russell was ever a logical positvist
Agreed, and you have no clue what you are talking about if you think analytic philosophy is "soulless" - the genealogy of analytic philosophy goes back to Pythagoras, and the mysticism and revelation which necessarily undergirds logic. We don't like to talk about this at all, but all our science and reason works only because it is grounded in the ineffable (as Russell himself knew, though he was not comfortable exploring this).

>>22782257
>His main objection to this phenomenon is the fact that fathers are being selfish, as if being selfish is some intrinsically immoral action even when it provides tangible benefits to others.
He's describing fathers who seek the success of their kids just to demonstrate their own sucess and status and who put a crushingly high expectation on their kid.
Maybe you had the opposite, a neglectful father, so you find this hard to understand.
Bit what he's describing isn't particularly political or even all that related to his overall philosophical views, it's a pretty common observation many make

>>22782288
sure we can criticize russell's own exaggerated polemic against the "fathers" of his time, but what you said was equally ludicrous in my mind. selfishness in parents will produce markedly different outcomes in children; it's not something which can exist silently and leave all other demands of parenting untouched by it.

>>22782010
What the fuck is wrong with his face

Anglos try to abstract the world into language, fail at that, and then claim their failed abstractions hold value over reality

He’s right though, many many many fathers get their sons into sports only because they were a failure at sports themselves so they can live vicariously through them.

>>22782306
>What the fuck is wrong with his face
That's the face of someone who's seen enough of this shit, it's the face I see every morning when I brush me teeth. What's wrong with his face? Better ask: what's wrong with this world?

>>22782314
this

>>22782323
Seriously frowning muscles. A powerful hater

>>22782302
You have no clue and are just making up stories. Selfishness may be the key to working parenting for all you know. A selfish parent wanting to raise a child to signal status and adhere to the established norms may be far superior to the retard that convinces himself he's acting according to some selfless ideal.

>>22780643
Bertrand Russell is one of the worst people to ever live.

>>22782263
I always felt like liberals tried to grapple with the idea of nationalism from the wrong end, people aren't exclusionary because they harbor nationalistic ideas, they are nationalistic because they think that particular groups in the society of the present ought to be excluded for the benefit of the majority, almost always due to the exclusionary, pro-minority ingroup, anti-majority outgroup behavior of those groups.

Judaism is also basically the blueprint of all nationalisms, so it is logically contradictory to consider non-jewish nationalism bad while not doing the same for judaism since it is for all intents and purposes it is an exclusionary, comically chauvinistic ethnocult.

>>22782274
>>22782293
Its an abstraction to draw people away from reality, it tried to reduce philosophy to definitions and mathematics. Its absolutely as soulless as it gets. >>22782314 is right

>>22782357
Judaism is hardly the blueprint of all nationalisms, given that it says the jewish people wouldn't exist without the jewish covenant. Its an inversion of nationalism.
The blueprint of nationalism is simply our tribal instincts. I care about my family and tribe because it's mine. The fact that its an instinct means that its acceptance is a non-negotiable part of proper ethics.

>>22782257
>>Even if a father works to see their child succeed in order to demonstrate that he's a good father he's still working to see his child succeed.
You are being reductive here. Raising a child is more than working for their success. I'll repeat: This criticism is one of a specific type of father figure, it is one aimed at those who are motivated first and foremost by the success of their offspring for purpose of signalling status. It is a motivator, which is often detrimental to the child as a whole. One cannot provide their child with necessary support when the priorities aren't first and foremost serving the needs of the child. Would sending your child to a boarding school to study your specific brand of education be more beneficial to their success? Forgive me for the "out there" example but it shows my point most simply. Surely it's beneficial to their success, they would be rubbing shoulders with higher status individuals, and their education would be better than the average man, however a child has emotional needs from their father that cannot be fulfilled if precedent is always placed on success. This is how you get an epidemic of women with daddy issues and immature young men who overcompensate with flaunting materialistic goods and shallow sexual encounters.

>>22781138
True, Rawls is the archpriest of globohomo
>muh veil of ignorance
>so happens to be lead to modern liberalism
can't believe people take him seriously

>>22782336
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Mark Kozelek, and Cardinal Robert "AfroPope" Sarah are on the Mt Rushmore of faces that look like I feel

>>22782522
Spengler might take the last spot, I'm not ready to commit just yet

>>22780643
Bertrand Russell is one of the greatest people to ever live

>>22782306
Bug eyes
Weak eyebrows

>>22782323
Ptosis
No eyebrows
Scowling

>>22782323
>what's wrong with your face? he asked
>what's wrong with this world? I replied

>>22782586
Fukken love this song

>>22782183
It's not in the child's well being to be successful?
Boomers had your mentality and raised a completely useless generation which will give the final blow to modern civilization, so good work.

>>22781897
>he's right though

>>22782647
>well done incels keep them coming we love this
Wow that didn't work

>>22782647
jeez

>>22782619
>>22782647
you sound like you were raised by a single mom

>>22782306
He's jewish.

>>22782619
The principle is very sound. It's only problematic when the child has actual passions developed that go against their parents' plan for them. That's when 'parents don't view their children as people but as extensions of themselves' becomes problematic, because a parent pushing a child down a road that they wouldn't choose for themselves could stunt them for eternity, and rob them of any autonomy.

Be that as it may, most kids nowadays are dispassionate lazy losers who search for meaning in meaningless pursuits. So yes, maybe they would benefit from a rigid parent pushing to the most secure direction in life.

>>22782647
>H-haha, k-keep them coming!
anyone who says this is unironically seething

>>22782263
The most amazing thing about Russell is that he was somehow NOT of the tribe

>>22782619
>It's not in the child's well being to be successful?

No.

>>22782522
Cardinal Sarah is what made me realize that civilization really does flow from God, and to be civilized is essentially to be "ensouled" via the Sacraments, most pointedly baptism. There is no civilization without some kind of connection to the Divine, we are seeing that now with our atheistic society reverting to shrieking barbarism and nonsense. All the most civilized people I know practice some kind of religion.

>>22781138
Rawls didn't have other men fuck his wife. Russel was LITERALLY (the literal kind) an actual honest to god cuckhold, his wife had sex with other men and was even impregnated by them with his approval.

>>22781138
rawls was fucking awesome

>>22783099
>was even impregnated by them with his approval.
Literally "my wife's son". Didn't it happen twice too?

>>22782357
This. When we start to diverse people in very specific groups - we start to hates others groups as whole. I felt this when i was reading Old Testament - growing hate and disgust (more because of their lamenting themselves and whipping) for Jews. But now, after studing their history and modern influence, i understand them better than they are understanding themselves, and think that we need another holocaust.

>>22783987
Correct, and after that he divorced her because he was seething the entire time. And then what do you know, he writes a paper in defense of divorce.

>>22782849
Not even that. He just had a weird looking face. Have seen people who look like him and aren't Jewish.

>>22782349
Why do you think this

>>22784031
His actual son and successor was a loonie, so perhaps the adulteress sensed it.
>https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1978/jul/18/victims-of-crime-aid-policy#S5LV0395P0_19780718_HOL_409
>https://jot101.com/2021/02/visionary-speech-by-earl-russell-part-3/

>>22783001
Any use of the term toxic masculinity is obviously seething (and possibly coping and dilating)

>>22784174
He's representative of the kind of thinking that gave all control to cynical manipulators and resulted in the globohomo world order based on mutually assured destruction.
A very emotional, biased and status obsessed person that's easily manipulated by emotional appeals but certain he has mastered all bias and his delusions are provably true like math statements. This is the kind of absolute retard that justifies his confidence in his worldview by appealing to blatant war propaganda.
Pretty much every quote by this guy is rooted in dishonesty or actual propaganda and if taken seriously would lead to poor outcomes.

>>22780643
He is right, everything everyone does is really just done to benefit themselves. There are rarely people who give just to give.

>>22784506
And?

>>22780643
I think he is moreso talking about fathers who have sons to get free labor on the farm and the like.

>>22782306
what is? he honestly just looks like a tired but regular dude

>>22782340
that's just complete conjecture. if we think about what it means to treat a child as a means to an end of establishing your own status there's simply no way for that to not produce a deep neuroticism. success at the expense of understanding and essential nurturing, parenting practiced with the view of your child as the mere contours of a human personality which you and you alone have power to shape in whichever way you desire, is something which is going to produce far more of an insecure base on which to raise somebody. in that case, you reduce your children down to employees who meet a kind of social quota -- if that's not concerning to you or contrary to every intuition you have about proper parenting, so be it, but your mere non-substantive conjecture that it could be the case in some purely probabilistic sense that selfish parenting is better is not very convincing to me.

>>22784633
You sound pretty "neurotic" yourself babbling about how parents supposedly control their children and that irrational fear of being forcibly integrated into some sort of collective.
Sounds like you are just projecting.

>>22784633
>that's just complete conjecture
I tried to be very explicit about the fact that it is, like the stories this braindead faggot and you are telling while pretending they're absolute and even "fundamental" facts.
You don't know shit about the human psyche, child rearing or even how to train a mentally healthy animal like a dog. You've just decided some platitude by a retard sounds nice and is therefore a fundamental fact even if it contradicts all human history.
I intuitively don't think treating offspring like employees is the best strategy but that's not the fucking quote and even that may very well be way more effective than I intuitively think.
The idea presented in the quote doesn't help anyone analyse anything or progress, it just resentfully undermines the role of fathers and familial relationships in general.