Lovecraft had the right idea about humanity. We'll never be able to colonize the stars because we can't travel faster than light. Even assuming we could, our life span is not nearly long enough to survive the journey. We live, we die, we are forgotten with the passing ages. And when the sun burns out, it's taking our whole planet with it. And yet the universe will continue on as if we never existed. Cosmicism may not be pretty to think about, but it makes more sense than other philosophies that we've churned out.
Nyrufa We already have the technology, whether or not we're responsible enough to do so, is entirely different. Even if one doesn't believe the tech is there, transevolution through technology and a type of singularity will be the only means of which we can become like gods.
seth rice Humans are worthless, but incapable of accepting that fact. That's the entire point of Lovecraft's horror. It's not focused on deformed aliens ransacking the universe, but most people often confuse it as such.
Though I admire and respect S. T. a great deal, I fear that he is rather off on the reasons some (by no means all) of the "Golden Age" writers viewed HPL so dimly. Part of the reason was his prose style, which was of an older, more leisurely and textured sort, whereas the Hemingwayesque sort of prose was very much in the dominant phase during this period. Also, some of his ideas on race or sex which could be picked up from bits of his fiction, jarred with a group which was calling into question such attitudes. (Ironic, then, that the Golden Age itself has often been criticized on these very issues.) They certainly DIDN'T object to blending terror with science fiction, nor to taking a dim view of humanity's ability to accept the revelations of science equably or use its advances wisely -- see, for example, Groff Conklin's anthology, SCIENCE FICTION TERROR TALES, or Jack Williamson's THE HUMANOIDS, or much of the work of C. M. Kornbluth (e.g., "The Marching Morons", "The Little Black Bag"). Even Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke published stories which dealt with such themes. John W. Campbell himself, though being perhaps the most notable supporter of the idea of science as the "savior" of humankind, wrote a story or two of a rather more somber nature, such as "Twilight". On the subject of HPL's racism... this is a complex and thorny issue which still causes controversy. If one looks at his own writings -- letters, essays, and the like -- it is undeniable that he was indeed racist, at times quite violently so. Nor was this adopted for business reasons, nor did he abandon these views in later life. He DID moderate them somewhat, but they still remained at best paternalistic, more often forcibly negative. His views on Jews was particularly complex, as it consisted of an earlier view of them as essentially a separate "race" biologically, and later became more based on a cultural difference which he still felt was largely to be sequestered for the sake of the predominant culture in America and Europe. His marrying a Jewess, and having a number of Jewish friends and colleagues has to do with his feeling that these people HAD abandoned their Jewish heritage in favor of a more Anglo-Saxon or "Teutonic" (to use one of his favorite phrases) one, though even here he continued to struggle with full acceptance even of such a long-time friend and admired poet as Samuel Loveman. A complex and fascinating man; certainly not without his flaws and foibles -- some of them quite distasteful in modern terms, yet often not any more so than the bulk of writers working in the mainstream Western tradition... just more prolifically self-documented, via his letters, and (unfortunately) eloquent on such issues than most.....
@dodopod: Thanks for the thumbs-up. I dislike the view that writer isn't worth considering because some of views are (to say the least) morally or ethically repugnant to the people of today; to take such a view is to rob oneself of the bulk of Western (or, for that matter world) literature... very much, to use the old phrase, "throwing out the baby with the bath-water". Just as deriding the writings of James Branch Cabell for the scattered elements of racism or "sexist" (though even the hardest-line feminist would have trouble arguing with a straight face that they are misogynistic) views, so a dismissal of Lovecraft's finely-crafted works because of his distasteful ethnic views, is about as blind and blinkered as one can get. Granted, these aspects are there; but there is so damned much more to each of these writers which still retain value to a variety of views today. Use a little historical perspective and common sense, and derive the benefit(s) they have to offer. Don't ignore or attempt to justify the negatives, but don't male the mistake of confusing the part for the whole, either....
"he was indeed racist, at times quite violently so" ........................................................ Could you explain this point, please? I've always thought HPL's racism was more from an intellectual standpoint. When you say "violently", does that mean he physically harm people of other ethnicities or simply in the tone of his utterances? I'd never heard that, but then again, I just know the broad outlines of his life. Along with the points you make about his complex views regarding Jewish people, no less interesting are those he held regarding atheism and Christianity. He's known to have utterly deplored the brutal militancy of Soviet regime, which made a "religion" out of atheism. And while he didn't believe (I'm inclined to view him more as an agnostic than as a full-blown atheist, but religious skeptic he was), he nevertheless acknowledged certain value in the culture developed over the centuries by Christians. (He probably was baptized as a boy, because there is a story about him getting kicked out of Sunday School at Providence's First Baptist Church in America.) Perhaps the most curious intersection of beliefs was how he was how he, an atheist, married a Jewish woman--Sonia Greene-- in a Christian church--St. Paul's Chapel in Manhattan.
I think maybe Lovecraft had panic attacks at some point while he wrote. He comes across as if writing in such a state that he was scaring himself. The fear of too much knowledge or even knowledge not meant for us seems to be at the heart of his work. At that time humanity also discovered galaxies outside our own galaxy, that the universe was a whole bunch larger than they'd thought. I think that kind of shook him and his views. Earth became significantly smaller with that knowledge, and it really impacted Lovecraft's mindset.
Not to harp on about it, but it's totally fair to bring up specifics about Lovecraft's social idiosyncrasies--his racism was sufficiently intense as to inspire wide-eyed, side-eyed asocial pauses in conversation. He maintained a solid stance of atheistic materialism, but wrote many characters as versions of himself amalgamated with the public's horrified reactions to scientific discoveries that would overturn their theosophical and moral systems. He patently wasn't "well-adjusted," allowing his deep alienation to inspire his racism; additionally mounting himself as an aloof classical scholar, despite his crippling difficulties with math.
I'm not sure when but I've begun to notice that Lovecraft's views on the universe has started to really seep into my worldview. So much to the point that it's led to many arguments between myself and people I know about the meaning of life. Recently my brother commented that small dogs like chihuahuas are useless because they can't guard a house. I told him that a chihuahua's purpose isn't to guard a house. A chihuahua doesn't have a purpose. Like everything else in the universe it just exists and was only meant to exist (if it was meant to do anything at all). We had a bit of an argument over it and my dad sided with him. They both believe that everything has a reasons for being there.
Kira Suzuki I don't read Lovecraft enough for that him to influence my worldview, but I would have sided with you on that. (One story this year, first in I can't remember.)
We could find things have purpose like hounds, houses, cars, friends, and etc; has purpose in our perspective but in a great ones eyes sees it as the dirt in the cosmos.
@yeoldefreakshow It was more to do with the fact that he was brought up among the old world social elite of Providence. It wasn't an uncommon view at the time, not by a long shot.
I know I'm replying to a 5 year old post but that proposed/assumed pronounciation really does not roll off the tongue well. Soft c is definitely the superior rendition.
he was an occultist, a peer and equal to Aleister Crowley, he just denied because there was no tolerance in his time for the occult, they would call him a devil worshiper and prosecute him.
he was the opposite of that. I think he pitied religious and occult people (the same) for living in a world of fantasy refusing to grow up and accept the reality that we're just living creatures with lots of imagination.
Business point of view? What the hell does that even mean? His racism was most likely instilled into him by the people who raised him and it was your old-school racism (our race is better than everyone else.) And a lot of those views are imprinted in his work. Like his fear of immigrants and anyone who wasn't Anglo-Saxon white.
@@keikurono192 maybe he meant that it aggravated in front of the prominent place that foreigners had in the ultracapitalistic America he had to face when he spent two years in New York
Lovecraft had the right idea about humanity. We'll never be able to colonize the stars because we can't travel faster than light. Even assuming we could, our life span is not nearly long enough to survive the journey. We live, we die, we are forgotten with the passing ages. And when the sun burns out, it's taking our whole planet with it. And yet the universe will continue on as if we never existed. Cosmicism may not be pretty to think about, but it makes more sense than other philosophies that we've churned out.
Nyrufa We already have the technology, whether or not we're responsible enough to do so, is entirely different. Even if one doesn't believe the tech is there, transevolution through technology and a type of singularity will be the only means of which we can become like gods.
We will never get past the Van Allen radiation belt. We are locked here in this solar system.
We already have gone beyond the Van Allen belt, in 1969 when we landed on the moon.
Nyrufa yeah because its better say we cant do it and rot on this miserable mud ball (Im being sarcastic mind you)
seth rice Humans are worthless, but incapable of accepting that fact. That's the entire point of Lovecraft's horror. It's not focused on deformed aliens ransacking the universe, but most people often confuse it as such.
That image is adorable.
Though I admire and respect S. T. a great deal, I fear that he is rather off on the reasons some (by no means all) of the "Golden Age" writers viewed HPL so dimly. Part of the reason was his prose style, which was of an older, more leisurely and textured sort, whereas the Hemingwayesque sort of prose was very much in the dominant phase during this period. Also, some of his ideas on race or sex which could be picked up from bits of his fiction, jarred with a group which was calling into question such attitudes. (Ironic, then, that the Golden Age itself has often been criticized on these very issues.)
They certainly DIDN'T object to blending terror with science fiction, nor to taking a dim view of humanity's ability to accept the revelations of science equably or use its advances wisely -- see, for example, Groff Conklin's anthology, SCIENCE FICTION TERROR TALES, or Jack Williamson's THE HUMANOIDS, or much of the work of C. M. Kornbluth (e.g., "The Marching Morons", "The Little Black Bag"). Even Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke published stories which dealt with such themes. John W. Campbell himself, though being perhaps the most notable supporter of the idea of science as the "savior" of humankind, wrote a story or two of a rather more somber nature, such as "Twilight".
On the subject of HPL's racism... this is a complex and thorny issue which still causes controversy. If one looks at his own writings -- letters, essays, and the like -- it is undeniable that he was indeed racist, at times quite violently so. Nor was this adopted for business reasons, nor did he abandon these views in later life. He DID moderate them somewhat, but they still remained at best paternalistic, more often forcibly negative. His views on Jews was particularly complex, as it consisted of an earlier view of them as essentially a separate "race" biologically, and later became more based on a cultural difference which he still felt was largely to be sequestered for the sake of the predominant culture in America and Europe. His marrying a Jewess, and having a number of Jewish friends and colleagues has to do with his feeling that these people HAD abandoned their Jewish heritage in favor of a more Anglo-Saxon or "Teutonic" (to use one of his favorite phrases) one, though even here he continued to struggle with full acceptance even of such a long-time friend and admired poet as Samuel Loveman.
A complex and fascinating man; certainly not without his flaws and foibles -- some of them quite distasteful in modern terms, yet often not any more so than the bulk of writers working in the mainstream Western tradition... just more prolifically self-documented, via his letters, and (unfortunately) eloquent on such issues than most.....
@dodopod: Thanks for the thumbs-up. I dislike the view that writer isn't worth considering because some of views are (to say the least) morally or ethically repugnant to the people of today; to take such a view is to rob oneself of the bulk of Western (or, for that matter world) literature... very much, to use the old phrase, "throwing out the baby with the bath-water".
Just as deriding the writings of James Branch Cabell for the scattered elements of racism or "sexist" (though even the hardest-line feminist would have trouble arguing with a straight face that they are misogynistic) views, so a dismissal of Lovecraft's finely-crafted works because of his distasteful ethnic views, is about as blind and blinkered as one can get. Granted, these aspects are there; but there is so damned much more to each of these writers which still retain value to a variety of views today. Use a little historical perspective and common sense, and derive the benefit(s) they have to offer. Don't ignore or attempt to justify the negatives, but don't male the mistake of confusing the part for the whole, either....
"he was indeed racist, at times quite violently so"
........................................................
Could you explain this point, please? I've always thought HPL's racism was more from an intellectual standpoint. When you say "violently", does that mean he physically harm people of other ethnicities or simply in the tone of his utterances? I'd never heard that, but then again, I just know the broad outlines of his life.
Along with the points you make about his complex views regarding Jewish people, no less interesting are those he held regarding atheism and Christianity. He's known to have utterly deplored the brutal militancy of Soviet regime, which made a "religion" out of atheism. And while he didn't believe (I'm inclined to view him more as an agnostic than as a full-blown atheist, but religious skeptic he was), he nevertheless acknowledged certain value in the culture developed over the centuries by Christians. (He probably was baptized as a boy, because there is a story about him getting kicked out of Sunday School at Providence's First Baptist Church in America.)
Perhaps the most curious intersection of beliefs was how he was how he, an atheist, married a Jewish woman--Sonia Greene-- in a Christian church--St. Paul's Chapel in Manhattan.
Yeah he grew up a sheltered and confused, but has he started socializing with the world his views slowly changed.
We are much indebted to ST Joshi, nice to hear HPL's pronunciation of Cthulhu. Ty for uploading.
I think maybe Lovecraft had panic attacks at some point while he wrote. He comes across as if writing in such a state that he was scaring himself. The fear of too much knowledge or even knowledge not meant for us seems to be at the heart of his work. At that time humanity also discovered galaxies outside our own galaxy, that the universe was a whole bunch larger than they'd thought. I think that kind of shook him and his views. Earth became significantly smaller with that knowledge, and it really impacted Lovecraft's mindset.
Not to harp on about it, but it's totally fair to bring up specifics about Lovecraft's social idiosyncrasies--his racism was sufficiently intense as to inspire wide-eyed, side-eyed asocial pauses in conversation. He maintained a solid stance of atheistic materialism, but wrote many characters as versions of himself amalgamated with the public's horrified reactions to scientific discoveries that would overturn their theosophical and moral systems. He patently wasn't "well-adjusted," allowing his deep alienation to inspire his racism; additionally mounting himself as an aloof classical scholar, despite his crippling difficulties with math.
Herf Durferson he has a love for science yet, has difficultly in math skills? Looks like I found another thing that HP and I both have in common then.
great stuff. I have been lovecrafthead since the mid 60s
I'm not sure when but I've begun to notice that Lovecraft's views on the universe has started to really seep into my worldview. So much to the point that it's led to many arguments between myself and people I know about the meaning of life. Recently my brother commented that small dogs like chihuahuas are useless because they can't guard a house. I told him that a chihuahua's purpose isn't to guard a house. A chihuahua doesn't have a purpose. Like everything else in the universe it just exists and was only meant to exist (if it was meant to do anything at all). We had a bit of an argument over it and my dad sided with him. They both believe that everything has a reasons for being there.
Kira Suzuki I don't read Lovecraft enough for that him to influence my worldview, but I would have sided with you on that. (One story this year, first in I can't remember.)
Looks like your dad follows Aristotle’s function argument (implicitly)
We could find things have purpose like hounds, houses, cars, friends, and etc; has purpose in our perspective but in a great ones eyes sees it as the dirt in the cosmos.
my favorite writer and philosopher.
@yeoldefreakshow It was more to do with the fact that he was brought up among the old world social elite of Providence. It wasn't an uncommon view at the time, not by a long shot.
Thanks
Who is this? is this a podcast or a radio interview? i'd like to know where you got it from
Here's the source, though the podcast link is no longer up: archive.ttbook.org/book/st-joshi-hp-lovecraft
I always thought that the second c in cosmicism was a hard c (cos-mic-ism), not a soft c (cos-mi-cism)
I can see why you'd think that if you'd only ever seen it written down, but when spoken, it is generally pronounced as a soft c.
I know I'm replying to a 5 year old post but that proposed/assumed pronounciation really does not roll off the tongue well. Soft c is definitely the superior rendition.
@@hyperboreanarchives7299 I don't disagree.
Sherlock Holmes as the narrator.
It's funny that Arthur Clarke looked down on Lovecraft, considering Childhood's End is basically cosmicism.
he was an occultist, a peer and equal to Aleister Crowley, he just denied because there was no tolerance in his time for the occult, they would call him a devil worshiper and prosecute him.
he was the opposite of that. I think he pitied religious and occult people (the same) for living in a world of fantasy refusing to grow up and accept the reality that we're just living creatures with lots of imagination.
Him being an occultist is the stupidest thing I've ever heard
You can summarise HP love craft in a few words: "stories of people who have used halucinating drugs and had a bad trip".
Loveceraft was hilarious. Screwing with people by creating the simple name "Cthulu" and everybody else is super confused on how to pronounce it.
Ia! Ia! Cthulhu Ftaghen!
his racism from what I understand came from a buisness point of view and was not overly pround of his views,
I've never heard that before, well, I can enjoy his work without worrying about that now part of it now
Business point of view? What the hell does that even mean?
His racism was most likely instilled into him by the people who raised him and it was your old-school racism (our race is better than everyone else.) And a lot of those views are imprinted in his work. Like his fear of immigrants and anyone who wasn't Anglo-Saxon white.
He was ok with those who would assimilate to Anglo Saxon culture. I believe he was more of a culturist than a racist.
@@keikurono192 maybe he meant that it aggravated in front of the prominent place that foreigners had in the ultracapitalistic America he had to face when he spent two years in New York
why is american psycho narrating this?