Meaningful ideas and quotes

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

“I’ve never been worried about going beyond metaphysics or any death of philosophy. The function of philosophy, still thoroughly relevant, is to create concepts. Nobody else can take over that function. Philosophy has of course always had its rivals, from Plato’s “rivals” through to Zarathustra’s clown. These days, information technology, communications, and advertising are taking over the words “concept” and “creative,” and these “conceptualists” constitute an arrogant breed that reveals the activity of selling to be capitalism’s supreme thought, the cogito of the marketplace. Philosophy feels small and lonely confronting such forces, but the only way it’s going to die is by choking with laughter.”
— Deleuze, “On Philosophy,” Negotiations, p. 136

Like it or not, when our values are no longer decided by religion and philosophy, the work is mostly taken over by capitalism.

---

"Liberal education is liberation from vulgarity. The Greeks had a beautiful word for "vulgarity"; they called it apeirokalia, lack of experience in things beautiful."

-- Leo Strauss

'All human values are derived from humanism and its perspective that the improvement of the human condition is the loftiest, most noble goal to which we can aspire.  All values claimed to have originated from religions have, in fact, been hijacked from humanism.' - Hitchens

Boru

[Belacqua]

'All human values are derived from humanism and its perspective that the improvement of the human condition is the loftiest, most noble goal to which we can aspire.  All values claimed to have originated from religions have, in fact, been hijacked from humanism.' - Hitchens

Boru

You'd like to believe that. But it's not true.

Since Hitchens made the assertion, he has the burden of proof. (I realize that anti-religion statements on this forum usually carry no burden of proof, but let's pretend.) What arguments or facts does Hitchens use to back this up?

His book on religion is so full of factual errors that it could never pass even the most casual peer review. He was not a scholar, he was a popular journalist.

Thinking people do not become fanboys, and only fanboys take Hitchens seriously. He was wrong about the Iraq war and other political positions, when others were right.

It's amazing that anybody even remembers him.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

What arguments or facts does Hitchens use to back this up?

The fact than human existence predates religion.  This is a hard fact, and is not subject to reasonable objection.  The notion that humans existed for tens of thousands of years and did not grasp that murder, theft, perjury, and so on were wrong prior to the advent (no pun intended) of religion doesn't warrant serious consideration.

As for the rest of your post, being a journalist and being a scholar are not mutually exclusive propositions.

Hitchens wrote more than one book on religion, so it would be helpful to know to which book (and which errors) you are referring.

I agree that Hitchens was wrong about Iraq - I disagree with a lot of his political positions, but that has no bearing on his critiques of religion.

Boru

[vulcanlogician]

But what if it’s not done due to hate or spute, but simply because I want to?

I think Spinoza would say that's much better than doing harm out of spite or hatred.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

But what if it’s not done due to hate or spute, but simply because I want to?

I think Spinoza would say that's much better than doing harm out of spite or hatred.

Boru

[Belacqua]

The fact than human existence predates religion.  This is a hard fact, and is not subject to reasonable objection.

Boru

Yes, but it has nothing to do with Hitchens' claim. 

Unless he's defining "humanism" in some extremely broad way, so as to define himself into correctness. If it just means "good stuff about society that isn't religious" then yeah. 

But if he's just saying "all human values derived from the desire to make things better, which predates religion, and religion hijacked that," then it's not a very informative sentence, is it? Is that really what he means by "humanism"? What does "religion" mean? Does it include ancient hunter/gatherers kissing amulets or thanking the spirits of the animals? When exactly did that start? 

If we're thinking about some early anthropoid who wants to improve his tribe's condition, is this "humanism"?

As you know, the term was begun in the 19th century to refer to an emphasis on Greek and Latin learning. Since then it has been used in various ways, sometimes to contrast rational values vs. superstition. Do you think that cavemen made a distinction between rational values as against superstition? Or did they just try to explain stuff, with as yet no particular distinction -- we say some of their beliefs were superstitious because we don't believe them any more. But I'd be very surprised to find documentary evidence that early humans believed in some kind of primitive science first and then later added some new category called "religion." 

If perhaps Hitchens is repeating the false theory (sometimes repeated on this forum) that the Greeks and Romans were all nicely rational thinkers until the evil Christians came along, then he's just being silly. 

E.R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational

(You might enjoy reading about Dodds, but the way. He was an Irishman who knew Yeats and the other literary figures of the day, who made significant contributions to our understanding of Greek literature and thought. He also served well during WWII. His autobiography is a pleasure to read. As an example of a real scholar and careful thinker, he provides a useful contrast.)

The fact that none of this is clear from Hitchens' statement, and there is no reason to think it is true, is an example of his confusing polemics with reason. 

The only book of his that I've tried to read is the one about God. I'm old fashioned, in that I think authors should make some small effort to check their facts, so I didn't like it.

[Belacqua]

Without art we would be nothing but foreground and live entirely in the spell of that perspective which makes what is closest at hand and most vulgar appear as if it were vast, and reality itself.

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

A thought which might suggest a corollary: bad art, or anti-art, makes us think that what is close at hand and vulgar is reality itself.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

'I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die.' - Bertrand Russell

Boru

[Belacqua]

'I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die.' - Bertrand Russell

Boru

Do you agree with Russell's judgment here?

I'd be very interested to see the passages from Nietzsche which Russell uses to reach these conclusions. I certainly don't remember anything in any of Nietzsche's books which expresses admiration for those "whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die." In fact quite the opposite. And the conquerors? And contemplation of pain? Really? 

Without context I see no reason for Russell to reach these conclusions. Other than the quote, is there anything to show us that he's correct?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

'I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die.' - Bertrand Russell

Boru

Do you agree with Russell's judgment here?

I'd be very interested to see the passages from Nietzsche which Russell uses to reach these conclusions. I certainly don't remember anything in any of Nietzsche's books which expresses admiration for those "whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die." In fact quite the opposite. And the conquerors? And contemplation of pain? Really? 

Without context I see no reason for Russell to reach these conclusions. Other than the quote, is there anything to show us that he's correct?

You'll have to take that up with Lord Russell.

Boru