Comments on: Aphrodisiac?

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 01:56:46 +0000

Whatever Lawrence’s faults I do recommend his little essay on Ben Franklin. It’s quite funny, and especially good for anyone living in Philly who has to hear how great old Ben was all the time.

By: engels

engels — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 01:32:58 +0000

Msaybe we’re all shits,if it comes to that.

But if Russells sins can not be redeemd by his philosophy, and Guahgin’s by his painting, then God help the rest of us.

I’m pissed now, but whatever.

Over and out.

By: Dabodius

Dabodius — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 00:02:03 +0000

Monk blamed Russell’s parenting for his son’s schizophrenia—a quaint imputation in these neurological times.

Lawrence? An abusive bluffer, “a Midlands schoolmaster pretending to be a coal miner,” as a character of Terry Eagleton describes him, who intruded on Bloomsbury to discover himself outclassed by the likes of Russell, Bell, Fry, Keynes and V. Woolf. He could not hold his own in argument, so he tried to hurt with his Deep Insights into Character and What You’re Really Up To, pretending to authenticity. (Yes, that’s What He Was Really Up To, besides writing a few great novels.) Russell, IIRC, said he was depressed by
Lawrence’s aspersions for a few days—until he realized they were quite untrue, and then they troubled him no more. I’d question anybody’s love of humanity who expressed some sympathy for fascism.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:35:55 +0000

There’s a nice piece by Nagel (I think a review of Monk’s book) where he notes the strange disparity between the way Wittgenstein’s faults tend to be ignored, but Russell always gets a good kicking. I suppose that Russell wasn’t a “genius” in quite the same way W was, but I’m not certain why this should matter so much. After all, Russell’s work for CND (at an advanced age), and his campaigns for humanism seem to me, even if questionable, at least to signal a willingness to engage politically (compared with Wittgenstein) which seems to me admirable (of course, Russell was far more obviously nasty in his private life than was Wittgenstein, but I think W may have been destructive in his own unworldly way, and his politics seem, quite frankly, nasty).

I can predict that one response to this comment will be that Wittgenstein really wasn’t nasty at all – in fact, he was a paragon of a peculiar kind of virtue, both personally and in his isolationism about social affairs – whereas Russell really was beyond the pale, but I doubt that’s the whole story here.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 21:26:42 +0000

I guessed Russell, partly because of having read Ray Monk’s biography, but also because of the word ‘erotomaniac’ – that didn’t sound like a translation, so I figured an Anglophone, and it sounded kind of pseudo-technical, kind of Freudian-inflected, kind of ‘40s – so Russell fit both ways. That one word was a helpful clue.

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:54:09 +0000

Oh dear, all that education & I still can’t spell ‘insignificantly’ . . .

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:52:22 +0000

#38 – and others – in my student days (at Cambridge, coincidentally but insiginficantly) ‘a Bertie’ was feminist shorthand for a man who, while professing adherence to enlightened sexual attitudes behaved like a complete & utter shit to the women in his life.

By: jeet

jeet — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:37:49 +0000

Me? The 3rd Earl Russell? In a lecture hall full of nubile undergraduates? With my reputation? Has no one thought of the consequences?

By: harry b

harry b — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:47:08 +0000

I was joking about the painting! (and, if I hadn’t been, I’d have emphasized that I have no visual aesthetic judgment at all).

By: engels

engels — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:43:55 +0000

Fine: Bertrand Russell was a shit. Gauguin was a shit painter. Anything else? This has to be the most irritating thread you lot have put up since this.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:22:37 +0000

Would Constable’s sins have been redeemed by Gauguin’s painting?

By: harry b

harry b — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:16:14 +0000

Now, I’ll go off and read Williams. If anyone thinks that Gauguin’s sins were redeemed by his painting—no, I don’t concede that! (I wouldn’t concede that those sins would be redeemed by Constable’s painting, even!).

By: engels

engels — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:48:32 +0000

But I’m not certain that Harry would concede Williams’ premise, that Gauguin’s personal sins were redeemed by his painting.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:20:56 +0000

I quoted Bernard Williams earlier. I now see that Harry is moving into Gauguin territory!

By: harry b

harry b — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:31:38 +0000

Thanks Matt!

But seriously, I’m interested in the claim I make which I can’t defend (and which completely underlies my own reaction to Russell), that abominable behaviour in one’s private life is sufficient to undermine any claim to a good moral character. Well?