/lit/ - Literature

"It is obvious that in his day-dreams he is a warrior, not a professor; all the men he admires were military. His opinion of women, like every man's, is an objectification of his own emotion towards them, which is obviously one of fear. "Forget not thy whip"--but nine women out of ten would get the whip away from him, and he knew it, so he kept away from women, and soothed his wounded vanity with unkind remarks. He condemns Christian love because he thinks it is an outcome of fear: I am afraid my neighbour may injure me, and so I assure him that I love him. If I were stronger and bolder, I should openly display the contempt for him which of course I feel. It does not occur to Nietzsche as possible that a man should genuinely feel universal love, obviously because he himself feels almost universal hatred and fear, which he would fain disguise as lordly indifference. His "noble" man --who is himself in day-dreams--is a being wholly devoid of sympathy, ruthless, cunning, cruel, concerned only with his own power. King Lear, on the verge of madness, says:
I will do such things-
What they are yet I know not--
but they shall be The terror of the earth. This is Nietzsche's philosophy in a nutshell. "

>>10184464
Go to bed, Ludwig.

>>10053145
Is this guy another example.

Looking for advice from analytic philosophy connoisseurs.
I've been teaching philosophy for 15 years and never really read anything "analytic", just a little bit from Russell here and there, it sucked, and i'm pretty sure analytic philosophy in general sucks as much too.
But still. I wanna see, I wanna try. Looking for something *interesting* if possible. It doesn't have to be "true" or famous or anything else than interesting.
One thing that I can't stand is when they talk about "continental" philosophers that they never read or studied to begin with.

>write a history book about philosophy
>decide to shit French people and modern philosophers in the latter half of the book because they do not share your hypocritical Lockean views
Why was he so salty /lit/?

Have you noticed that the boards considered part of "low culture" and are genuinely filled with stupid posts also have by far the highest highs in terms of intelligent posts, high achieving posters (irl successful), and have been extremely successful in taking advantage of 4chan's format?

Have you noticed that the more serious boards are the opposite despite trying extremely hard to seem intelligent?

The Conquest of Happiness, by Bertrand Russell.

>How religion was treated in this new thought is the point to be noted here. In spite of the leaders' diversity of opinion, their common attitude concerning religion was always critical, and most of them regarded religion as useless.30
Ts'ai Yuian-p'ei, while not positively denying religion, stated that it is of no use in modern times when science has made such advances, and that "religious truths become clear as a result of investigation".[3]" Ch'en Tu-hsiu insisted
that one should oppose traditional religion in order to develop science. As for Christianity, he severely criticised certain irrational elements of the Christian doctrine and defects of the church, in spite of his appreciation of the personality of Jesus."1 But some people definitely opposed both Christianity and Christ himself. In an article entitled "What is Jesus?", Chu Chih-hsin
concluded that "Jesus is an idol which is fair spoken, ill-natured, narrowminded, selfish, irascible and revengeful".33

>In September 1920, the executive committee of the Young China Association passed the proposal made by its members residing in Paris, that anyone who
had religious faith of any kind should be excluded from membership. As this decision led to a controversy, the Association held special lecture meetings concerning religious problems in Peking and Nanking, where the opinions of
intellectual leaders were clearly stated.34 This was in 1920 and 1921. Bertrand
Russell was one of the speakers who spoke out against religion.

Was Bertrand Russel the Christopher Hitchens of his time? Is this seen in his work on the history of philosophy?

Also, Atheism btfoing Christianity thread

Does Bertrand Russell actually bother to make any LOGICAL arguments against christianity/belief?

I've read a bunch of his essays ("Why I am Not a Christian", "What I Believe", "A Free Man's Worship", etc.), and in each of them it appears he only ever makes moral arguments, spotted with anecdotes and historical references. He appears more obsessed with whether Jesus is a moral person, or whether the Catholic Church has done any good rather than presenting a solid logical argument.

Honestly, for such a famous analytic philospher he doesn't live up to his name in this department.