"When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only; what are the facts, and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted, either by what you wish to believe, or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. Look only and solely at what are the facts...
I should say love is wise, hatred is foolish. In this world which is getting more and more closely interconnected, we have to learn to tolerate each other. We have to learn to put up with the fact that some people say things that we don't like. We can only live together in that way. But if we are to live together, and not die together, we must learn a kind of charity and a kind of tolerance which is absolutely vital to the continuation of human life on this planet."
- Bertrand Russell, 1959 (aged 86)
Russell was born in 1872, during the period of Victorian England, and lived until 1970, almost a century. His grandfather Lord John Russell, who raised him, served two terms as Prime Minister of England and met Napolean at Elba. Russell was a mathematician, philosopher, public intellectual and activist. He was a pacifist and fought energetically against Great Britain's participation in the first World War. He believed that had Britain remained neutral, neither the Nazis nor the Communists would have emerged. Notwithstanding his avowed pacificism, he vigorously supported Britain's participation in World War 2 as a moral necessity. Having lived through a period of the most rapid and widespread technological and intellectual changes in history, from the industrial revolution through the advent of nuclear technology, he remarked that fanaticism was the greatest danger facing humankind.
4 comments:
Bertrand Russell is one of those philosophers that one can't help but admire, though I doubt anyone but the most staunch academics have actually read any of his books from cover to cover. I have attempted to on more than one occasion, but, alas, have been unsuccessful in the endeavor.
Ahad Ha-Am wrote a wonderful essay called "Sacred and Profane" Here is a quote from the essay: "Between things sacred and profane there is this difference among others. In profane matters the instrument derives its worth from the end, and is valued for the most part only in so far as it is a means to that end; and consequently we change the instruments as the end demands, and finally, when the end is no longer pursued, the instruments automatically fall into disuse. But in sacred matters the end invests the instrument with a sanctity of its own. Consequently, there is no changing or varying of the instrument ; and when the end has ceased to be pursued, the instrument does not fall out of use, but is directed towards another end. In other words : in the one case we preserve the shell for the sake of the kernel, and discard the shell when we have eaten the kernel ; in the other case we raise the shell to the dignity of the kernel, and do not rob it of that dignity even if the kernel withers, but make a new kernel for it." Bertrand Russell's works are a good example of "discarding the shell once we have eaten the kernel". Some of his ideas and a few random quotes, like the one you have quoted, survive, but the bulk of his writings and ideas are not, I think, very much read.
Regarding the Ahad Ha-Am essay, if you can get your hands on the full text (just google "Ahad Ha-Am essays"), it's worth the reading.
Admittedly I've never read anything by Bertrand Russell, certainly nothing related to mathematics or logic. Beyond my ken. I sort of think of him in the same way I think of Noam Chomsky. Brilliant, clear-thinking, deeply moral individuals who made lasting contributions in their academic field, but who were also politically vocal and active, and sometimes got it wrong (because they were purists, you might say) as public intellectuals, for instance on Zionism. Russell and Chomsky are still worth listening to. And fortunately, Russell is accessible in all the interviews and speeches he gave that are available online. But I understand why you recommend an essay on the Sacred and Profane, seeing as Russell was perhaps the most famous avowed atheist of the 20th century (possibly followed by Chomsky). I will definitely seek out the Ahad Ha-Am essay. Thanks for recommending it.
Not a fan of Chomsky, as you can imagine. You can find the Ahad Ha-Am essay on line if you google it. It's short. But it's an essay that has stayed with me over the years.
I looked for the Ahad Ha-Am essay, couldn't find it, at least not in a comnfortably readable format. I found a few other of his essays though. I did however find an intersting essay called "The Wrong Way" which struck me as prescient. The Wrong Way he is referring to is for A Zionism that is based in a kind of self-centeredness and not the national interest. And by self-centered he means in order to achieve personal goals, whether they be political, economic or religious, spiritual salvation - which you might read as the haredim in Israel today who refuse military service, and milk the largesse of the state for their instituional goals.)
" Subsequent events -- the terrible oppressions and frequent migrations, which intensified immeasurably the personal anxiety of every Jew for his own safety and that of his family -- contributed still further to the enfeebling of the already weakened national sentiment, and to the concentration of interest primarily in the life' of the family, secondarily in that of the congregation (in which the individual finds satisfaction for his needs). The national life of the people as a whole practically ceased to matter to the individual. Even those Jeffs who are still capable of feeling occasionally an impulse to work for the nation cannot as a rule so far transcend their individualism as to subordinate their own love of self and their own ambition, or their immediate family or communal interests, to the requirements of the nation. The demon of egoism -- individual or congregational -- haunts us in all that we do for our people, and suppresses the rare manifestations of national feeling, being the stronger of the two."
Post a Comment