About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 1:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wikipedia tells us that Shaw was a socialist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bernard_Shaw

I find it odd that a socialist would contend that no one has the right "to consume wealth without producing it."  Is that not all about what socialism is?

Wikipedia also notes that Shaw, a man whose mastery of English "endowed the language with the adjective 'Shavian' [and other] clever observations," left an estate plan "so badly worded that the relatives had grounds to challenge the will."

It also states that he sought to develop a refinement of the English language to eliminate many phonetic inconsistencies.  Did our "phormer" SOLO member Stolyarov take his cues from Shaw?

Shaw sounds like a talented man of many contradictions.


Post 1

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 2:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Right by what standard?

How does one "consume" happiness anyway?

Michael


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 3:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
How does one "consume" happiness anyway?

Exactly! It's a non-sensical quote. Happiness is not something that can be "consumed". Expressed, certainly, but not consumed, and given that happiness pertains to the individual alone, then the whole idea of consuming it when you haven't produced it is non-sensical too.

(Edited by Richard Wiig on 11/18, 3:37pm)


Post 3

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 3:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't know the full context behind it and it is a very nebulous statement standing alone.  What I assumed he meant, was that one does not have the right to happiness at the cost of others and that it is not something guaranteed to you; you have to produce it yourself.  The whole "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" thing.  One can pursue happiness, but it is not to be guaranteed by anyone else.

Post 4

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 3:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jody,

I kinda get a semi-altruistic idea from this quote that makes me uneasy, i.e., you have no right to be happy unless you make others happy.

Michael


Post 5

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 3:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael-
I briefly mused along those lines myself.  Do you think maybe he was talking the socialist talk of class-warfare and the consuming of the products and 'happiness' of the producers, which in socialist speak could mean the "workers"?


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 4:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jody,

That's a good question. I just looked the quote up and saw that it was from Candida (1898) - Act 1.

Here is a description of the play:
Morell is a clergyman who is married to a brilliant woman, Candida. She is really responsible for much of his success. When the play opens she is returning from a vacation with her children. She brings along with her a handsome young poet, Marchbanks. Marchbanks is in love with Candida, and he tells Morell that she deserves something more than mere complacency from her husband. Morell orders the poet to leave, but at that moment Candida comes in and treats him kindly, inviting him to stay. Morell begins to have doubts; he seems old and tired.

He decides that he must leave the two alone together while he speaks at a meeting. When he returns, it seems that Candida and Marchbanks have grown even closer. The men quarrel and demand that she choose between them.   Candida decides that she must choose the man who needs her most, her husband.


What this description does not mention is that Morell is a socialist clergyman. He is the one who utters the phrase. Here is the full context of the quote:

Ah, my boy, get married: get married to a good woman; and then you'll understand. That's a foretaste of what will be best in the Kingdom of Heaven we are trying to establish on earth. That will cure you of dawdling. An honest man feels that he must pay Heaven for every hour of happiness with a good spell of hard unselfish work to make others happy. We have no more right to consume happiness without producing it than to consume wealth without producing it. Get a wife like my Candida; and you'll always be in arrear with your repayment.


Pure altruistic service to God.


Michael

 
 

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 11/18, 4:42pm)


Post 7

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 4:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If memory serves, it's a quote from Man and Superman, Shaw's thoroughly self-conscious ode to Nietzsche.  The consuming happiness line is in reference to unrequited love; someone who just lets another person lavish love and adoration upon them without reciprocating, or calling it off, is a scoundrel--that kind of thing.  Shaw's philosophy was more an occasion for his lively intellect to play than a rigorously integrated whole.  He was also deeply sensitive to the troubles of people living in the slums of London which propelled him into the Fabien Society for a while and like a lot of people in the middle of the twentieth century he went through his "fascism might be the answer" phase.  Very complex fella was GBH.

-Kevin

Edit: oh well!  Memory should be fired after that disgraceful episode!  Thanks Michael for the clarification.  Wouldn't write off Shaw's art just because Morell is a good socialist, Shaw certainly wasn't and the agon between Morell and Marchbanks, has Morell looking pretty stupid much of the time. 

Edit: dang!  GBS... thanks, Luke.  I did the same thing in college, my profs and I never figgered out why I did it.  Grrr.  Argh.

(Edited by Kevin Haggerty on 11/18, 8:11pm)


Post 8

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 5:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael-
Good work, you are damned correct my friend.  We have no right to happiness unless we contribute to the happiness of others, we must not consume unless we produce for others.  Altruism indeed.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 5:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kevin, don't you mean GBS rather than GBH?

Based on Wikipedia, Shaw definitely was a socialist.


Post 10

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 5:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke-
That's what I thought.  I seem to remember that he was mega-socialist.


Post 11

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 5:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
When people ask me "how's life treating you?", I sometimes respond "the real question is how you're treating life." That's how I interpreted the quote...

Post 12

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 5:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here's a biographical link which details Shaw's socialism.  He stood in the streets preaching socialism!

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 8:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
He stood in the streets preaching socialism!
So, I'm given to understand, have some of the people on this board!  Philosophies change.  And wrote most of his heavy socialist plays in the 19th century, when socialism still seemed possible.  Also, he became deeply disillusioned by socialism and broke with the movement.  Wikipidia is not the voice of god, people!  I've read every dang play the guy ever wrote and his philosophy evolved ("evolved" is putting it nicely--veered radically in all directions might be more accurate) a lot over his long life.  Not saying he was a proto-Oist by any means, but the man was really far more exited by rhetoric than ideas, I'd say.  He had a way of getting excited about an idea and then becoming equally excited by its opposite; his better plays are some of the best written philosophical free-for-alls you can read.  Anyway...

-Kevin

Post 14

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 10:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kevin,

LOLOLOLOLOLOL...

Yes, some people around here have changed radically over time.

Black and white. Oil and water. The full 180 degrees.

//;-)

(btw - I enjoy Shaw's plays a lot, too. The guy sure knew how to write.)

Michael



Post 15

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 6:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke,

Yes Shaw was a socialist.  He founded the Fabian Society if not in deed by lending his great reputation to its effort.  I was as surprised as you to see this quote attributed to him.  The attribution may be incorrect.


Post 16

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 6:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As to the happiness thing, there is too much being read into it.  I believe he is referring to those who bring others down, like the boring cynic who is invited to a celebration and complains because good cheer is the order of the day.  The kind of person who tells us we have no reason to be happy ever because the world is going to hell in a hand basket; that there is no time to smell the roses.

Post 17

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 7:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert D,
I was as surprised as you to see this quote attributed to him.  The attribution may be incorrect.
Incorrect? You posted a quote you were in doubt about?

Did you even bother to read Post 6? I quoted the full line from Candida. Other posters on this thread even commented on it.

The line is Shaw's all right. Just horribly out of context.

Michael



Post 18

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 8:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

I am sorry, I forgot to check with the fount of all wisdom.  I just liked the quote, mainly because it is the answer to those who whine that they don't get invited to parties; the professionally lonely.

PS- I am fonder of Candide.  It is a lot more fun.

(Edited by Robert Davison on 11/19, 8:48am)


Post 19

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 9:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

Nah. I ain't the fount of all wisdom. I just posted some donkey work from Google on a thread you set up.

You prefer Candide? Does that mean you have read Candida, then, as a basis for comparison?

Michael


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.