Thread replies: 6
Thread images: 2
Anonymous
2016-06-19 00:50:32 Post No. 8178909
[Report]
Image search:
[Google]
Anonymous
2016-06-19 00:50:32
Post No. 8178909
[Report]
Has anyone ever been able to rebut Bertrand Russell's "Marriage and Morals"? Even Einstein said the work was brilliant.
>Love as a relation between men and women was ruined by the desire to make sure of the legitimacy of children.
>The psychology of adultery has been falsified by conventional morals, which assume, in monogamous countries, that attraction to one person cannot coexist with a serious affection for another. Everybody knows that this is untrue.
>Even in civilised mankind faint traces of a monogamic instinct can sometimes be perceived.
>I should not hold it desirable that either a man or a woman should enter upon the serious business of a marriage intended to lead to children without having had previous sexual experience.
>Science enables us to realise our purposes, and if our purposes are evil, the result is disaster.
>Gluttony is regarded by the Catholic Church as one of the seven deadly sins, and those who practise it are placed by Dante in one of the deeper circles of hell; but it is a somewhat vague sin, since it is hard to say where a legitimate interest in food ceases and guilt begins to be incurred. Is it wicked to eat anything that is not nourishing? If so, with every salted almond we risk damnation.
Russell's father allowed Russell's mother to sleep with Russell's tutor, and Bertrand Russell grew up to be a genius and win the Nobel Peace Prize.
