Unpopular Essays & Sceptical Essays

Bertrand Russell
Introduction to Bertrand Russell
Introduction
Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872-1970) was a wide-ranging British
thinker, philosopher, mathematician and Nobel laureate best known for his
work in the foundations of mathematics and analytic philosophy.
century philosophy. He was also
His emphasis on logical analysis influenced the course of 20 th
a political activist, a moral theorist, an educational innovator, and a gifted
popularizer of concepts widely believed to be too deep for the general public
(like the theory of relativity). A prolific writer, he was also a populariser
of philosophy and a commentator on a large variety of topics, ranging from
very serious issues to the mundane. Continuing a family tradition
inpolitical affairs, he was a prominent anti-war activist for most of his long
life, championing free trade between nations and anti-imperialism.
Millions looked up to Russell as a prophet of the creative and rational life;
at the same time, his stances on many topics were extremely controversial. Over
the course of his long career, Russell made significant contributions, not just to
logic and philosophy, but to a broad range of other subjects including education,
history, political theory and religious studies. In addition, many of his writings
on a wide variety of topics in both the sciences and the humanities have
influenced generations of general readers. After a life marked by controversy
(including dismissals from both Trinity College, Cambridge, and City College,
New York), Russell was awarded the Order of Merit in 1949 and the Nobel Prize
for Literature in 1950.
Also noted for his many spirited anti-war and anti-nuclear protests, Russell
remained a prominent public figure until his death at the age of 97. He was an
English Lord (an Earl), who inherited his title from his grandfather John
Russell, a former prime minister.
Russell was born at the height of Britain’s economic and political
ascendancy. He died of influenza nearly a century later, at a time when
the British Empire had all but vanished, its power dissipated by two
debilitating world wars. As one of the world's best-known intellectuals,
Russell's voice carried great moral authority, even into his mid 90s. Among his
political activities, Russell was a vigorous proponent of nuclear
disarmament and an outspoken critic of the American invasion of Vietnam. In
1950, Russell was made a Nobel Laureate in Literature, "in recognition of his
varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and
freedom of thought".
Biography
Bertrand Russell was born on 18 May1872 at Trellech, Monmouth shire,
in Wales, into an aristocratic English family. Bertrand Russell's father
was John Russell, Viscount Amberley. His paternal grandfather, John Russell,
1st Earl Russell, had been the British Prime Minister in the 1840s and 1860s,
and was the second son of John Russell, 6th Duke of Bedford. The Russells had
been prominent for several centuries in Britain, and were one of Britain's
leading Whig(Liberal) families. Russell's mother Kate (née Stanley) was also
from an aristocratic family, and was the sister of Rosalind Howard, Countess of
Carlisle. Russell's parents were quite radical for their times—Russell's
father, Viscount Amberley, was anatheist and consented to his wife's affair with
their children's tutor, the biologistDouglas Spalding. Both were early advocates
of birth control at a time when this was considered scandalous. John Stuart
Mill, the Utilitarian philosopher, was Russell's godfather.
Orphaned at the age of 3, Russell was raised by his grandparents (the former
prime minister and his wife) who went to court to gain custody of Bertrand and
his brother from the younger, more progressive guardians named their father's
will. The elderly Russells provided a household that was politically liberal,
religiously conservative, strict, and rather old-fashioned. Bertrand was
educated by tutors and had little contact with other children of his age. Much of
his career can be interpreted as a revolt against his upbringing. Though he held
onto (and radicalized) many of his grandparents' liberal political views, he
rejected their religion, and throughout his life was unable to think of religion as
anything other than old-fashioned, traditional, judgmental, and superstitious.
His attraction to abstract studies like philosophy and mathematics was a
marked contrast to his grandfather's worldly practicality. His liberal
educational theories were a rejection of the form his own education, and his
ethical writings (especially his views about sex) were a rejection of the content.
When he skewers Victorian nostalgia in Chapter 2 of Conquest of Happiness,
he speaks from childhood experience that he is not the least bit nostalgic for.
Childhood and adolescence
Russell had two siblings: Frank (nearly seven years older than Bertrand),
and Rachel (four years older). In June 1874 Russell's mother died of diphtheria,
followed shortly by Rachel, and in January 1876 his father also died
of bronchitisfollowing a long period of depression. Frank and Bertrand were
placed in the care of their staunchly Victorian grandparents, who lived
at Pembroke Lodge in Richmond Park. The 1st Earl Russell died in 1878, and
his widow the Countess Russell (née Lady Frances Elliot) was the dominant
family figure for the rest of Russell's childhood and youth. The countess was
from a ScottishPresbyterian family, and successfully petitioned a
British court to set aside a provision in Amberley's will requiring the children to
be raised as agnostics. Despite her religious conservatism, she held progressive
views in other areas (acceptingDarwinism and supporting Irish Home Rule),
and her influence on Bertrand Russell's outlook on social justice and standing
up for principle remained with him throughout his life. However, the
atmosphere at Pembroke Lodge was one of frequent prayer, emotional
repression and formality - Frank reacted to this with open rebellion, but the
young Bertrand learned to hide his feelings.
Russell's adolescence was very lonely, and he often contemplated suicide.
He remarked in his autobiography that his keenest interests were in sex,
religion and mathematics, and that only the wish to know more mathematics
kept him from suicide. He was educated at home by a series of tutors, and he
spent countless hours in his grandfather's library. His brother Frank introduced
him to Euclid, which transformed Russell's life.
University and First Marriage
Russell won a scholarship to readmathematics at Trinity
College, Cambridge University, and commenced his studies there in 1890. He
became acquainted with the younger G.E. Moore and came under the influence
of Alfred North Whitehead, who recommended him to the Cambridge Apostles.
He quickly distinguished himself in mathematics and philosophy, graduating
with a B.A. in the former subject in 1893 and adding a fellowship in the latter in
1895.
Russell first met the American Quaker,Alys Pearsall Smith, when he was
seventeen years old. He fell in love with the puritanical, high-minded Alys, who
was connected to several educationists and religious activists, and, contrary to
his grandmother's wishes, he married her in December 1894.
Their marriage began to fall apart in 1902 when Russell realised he no longer
loved her; they divorced nineteen years later. During this period, Russell had
passionate (and often simultaneous) affairs with, among others, Lady Ottoline
Morrelland the actress, Lady Constance Malleson. Alys pined for him for these
years and continued to love Russell for the rest of her life.
Early Career
Russell began his published work in 1896 with German Social Democracy,
a study in politics that was an early indication of a lifelong interest in political
and social theory. In 1896, he taught German social democracy at the London
School of Economics, where he also lectured on the science of power in the
autumn of 1937. He was also a member of the Coefficients dining club of social
reformers set up in1902 by the Fabian campaigners Sidney andBeatrice Webb.
Russell became a fellow of the Royal Society in 1908. The first of three
volumes ofPrincipia Mathematica (written with Whitehead) was published in
1910, which (along with the earlier The Principles of Mathematics) soon made
Russell world famous in his field. In 1911, he became acquainted with the
Austrian engineering student Ludwig Wittgenstein, whom he viewed as a
genius and a successor who would continue his work on logic. He spent hours
dealing with Wittgenstein's various phobias and his frequent bouts of despair.
The latter was often a drain on Russell's energy, but he continued to be
fascinated by him and encouraged his academicdevelopment, including the
publication of Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus in 1922.
First World War
During the first World War, Russell engaged in pacifist activities, and,
in 1916, he was dismissed from Trinity Collegefollowing his conviction under
the Defence of the Realm Act. A later conviction resulted in six months'
imprisonment in Brixton prison.
Between the Wars, and Second Marriage
In 1920, Russell travelled to Russia as part of an official delegation sent by
the British government to investigate the effects of the Russian Revolution.
During the course of his visit, he met Lenin and had an hour-long conversation
with him. (In his autobiography, he mentions that he found Lenin rather
disappointing, and that he sensed an "impish cruelty" in him.) He also cruised
down the Volga on a steam-ship. Russell's lover Dora Black also visited Russia
independently at the same time - she was enthusiastic about the revolution, but
Russell's experiences destroyed his previous tentative support for it.
Russell subsequently lectured in Beijingon philosophy for one year,
accompanied by Dora. While in China, Russell became gravely ill
with pneumonia, and incorrect reports of his death were published in the
Japanese press. When the couple visitedJapan on their return journey, Dora
notified journalists that "Mr Bertrand Russell, having died according to the
Japanese press, is unable to give interviews to Japanese journalists".
On the couple's return to England in 1921, Dora was five months pregnant,
and Russell arranged a hasty divorce from Alys, marrying Dora six days after
the divorce was finalised. Their children were John Conrad Russell, 4th Earl
Russell andKatharine Jane Russell (now Lady Katharine Tait). Russell
supported himself during this time by writing popular books explaining matters
of physics, ethics and education to the layman. Together with Dora, he also
founded the experimental Beacon Hill School in 1927. After he left the school in
1932, Dora continued it until 1943.
Upon the death of his elder brother Frank, in 1931, Russell became the 3rd
Earl Russell. He once said that his title was primarily useful for
securing hotel rooms.
Russell's marriage to Dora grew increasingly tenuous, and it reached a
breaking point over her having two children with an
American journalist, Griffin Barry. In 1936, he took as his third wife
an Oxfordundergraduate named Patricia ("Peter") Spence, who had been his
children'sgoverness since the summer of 1930. Russell and Peter had one
son, Conrad Sebastian Robert Russell, later to become a prominent historian,
and one of the leading figures in the Liberal Democrat party.
Second World War
After the Second World War, Russell taught at the University of Chicago,
later moving on to Santa Barbara to lecture at theUniversity of California, Los
Angeles. He was appointed professor at the City College of New York in 1940,
but after a public outcry by opponents of free speech, the appointment was
annulled by a court judgement: his opinions (especially those relating to sexual
morality, detailed inMarriage and Morals ten years earlier) made him "morally
unfit" to teach at the college. The protest was started by the mother of a student
who (as a woman) would not have been eligible for his graduate-level course in
mathematical logic. Many intellectuals, led by John Dewey, protested his
treatment. Dewey and Horace M. Kallen edited a collection of articles on the
CCNY affair in The Bertrand Russell Case. He soon joined the Barnes
Foundation, lecturing to a varied audience on the history of philosophy - these
lectures formed the basis of A History of Western Philosophy. His relationship
with the eccentric Albert C. Barnes soon soured, and he returned to Britain in
1944 to rejoin the faculty of Trinity College.
Russell then collaborated for eight years with the British philosopher and
mathematician Alfred North Whitehead to produce the monumental
work Principia Mathematica (3 volumes, 1910-1913). This work showed that
mathematics can be stated in terms of the concepts of general logic, such as
class and membership in a class. It became a masterpiece of rational thought.
Russell and Whitehead proved that numbers can be defined as classes of a
certain type, and in the process they developed logic concepts and a logic
notation that established symbolic logic as an important specialization within
the field of philosophy. In his next major work, The Problems of
Philosophy (1912), Russell borrowed from the fields of sociology, psychology,
physics, and mathematics to refute the tenets of idealism, the dominant
philosophical school of the period, which held that all objects and experiences
are the product of the intellect. Russell, a realist, believed that objects perceived
by the senses have an inherent reality independent of the mind.
Later life
Russell returned to England in 1944 and was reinstated as a fellow
of Trinity College. Although he abandoned pacifism to support the Allied cause
in World War II (1939-1945), he became an ardent and active opponent of
nuclear weapons. In 1949 he was awarded the Order of Merit by King George
VI. Russell received the 1950 Nobel Prize for Literature and was cited as “the
champion of humanity and freedom of thought.” He led a movement in the late
1950s advocating unilateral nuclear disarmament by Britain, and at the age of
89 he was imprisoned after an antinuclear demonstration. He died onFebruary
2, 1970.
During the 1940s and 1950s, Russell participated in many broadcasts over
theBBC on various topical and philosophical subjects. By this time in his life,
Russell was world famous outside of academic circles, frequently the subject or
author ofmagazine and newspaper articles, and was called upon to offer up
opinions on a wide variety of subjects, even mundane ones. En route to one of
his lectures in Trondheim, Russell survived a plane crash in October 1948. A
History of Western Philosophy (1945) became a best-seller, and provided
Russell with a steady income for the remainder of his life. In 1949, Russell was
awarded theOrder of Merit, and the following year he was awarded the Nobel
Prize for Literature.
In 1952, Russell was divorced by Peter, with whom he had been very
unhappy. Conrad, Russell's son by Peter, did not see his father between the time
of the divorce and 1968 (at which time his decision to meet his father caused a
permanent breach with his mother). Russell married his fourth wife,Edith
Finch, soon after the divorce, in December 1952. They had known each other
since 1926, and Edith had lectured Englishat Bryn Mawr
College near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, sharing a house for twenty years with
Russell's old friend Lucy Donnelly. Edith remained with him until his death,
and, by all accounts, their relationship was close and loving throughout their
marriage. Russell's eldest son, John, suffered from serious mental illness, which
was the source of ongoing disputes between Russell and John's mother,
Russell's former wife, Dora. John's wife Susan was also mentally ill, and
eventually Russell and Edith became the legal guardians of their three
daughters (two of whom were later diagnosed withschizophrenia).
Political Causes
Russell's politics were always controversial. He viewed World War I as a
kind of mass insanity (and was personally annoyed that it interrupted his
collaboration with Ludwig Wittgenstein). He was imprisoned for pacifism in
1918, a great scandal for a Lord. He espoused socialism for much of his life, and
was one of many liberal intellectuals to give credibility to theSoviet Union when
he visited in the 1920s. After World War II he was a leader in the movements to
encourage nuclear disarmament and to protest the Vietnam War.
Russell spent the 1950s and 1960sengaged in various political causes,
primarily related to nuclear disarmament and opposing the U.S. invasion of
Vietnam. He wrote a great many letters to world leaders during this period. He
also became a hero to many of the youthful members of the New Left. During
the 1960s, in particular, Russell became increasingly vocal about his
disapproval of what he felt to be the American government's near-genocidal
policies. In 1963 he became the inaugural recipient of the Jerusalem Prize, an
award for writers concerned with the freedom of the individual in society.
Final Years and Death
Bertrand Russell published his three-volume autobiography in 1967, 1968
and in 1969, which was the final volume. Although he became frail, he remained
lucid until the end. On 31 January 1970 he condemned "Israeli aggression in
the Middle East", saying that "We are frequently told that we must sympathize
with Israel because of the suffering of the Jews in Europe at the hands of the
Nazis. ... What Israel is doing today cannot be condoned, and to invoke the
horror of the past to justify those of the present is gross hypocrisy". This was
read out at the International Conference of Parliamentarians in Cairo on 3
February1970.
Bertrand Russell died at 6.30 pm on 2 February 1970 at his home, Plas
Penrhyn,Penrhyndeudraeth, Merioneth, Wales ofinfluenza. He had previously
fought that illness off in late December 1969. His ashes, as his will directed,
were scattered after his cremation three days later.
Philosopher and Author
In addition to his earlier work, Russell also made a major contribution to
the development of logical positivism, a strong philosophical movement of the
1930s and 1940s. The major Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, at one
time Russell's student at Cambridge, was strongly influenced by his original
concept of logical atomism. In his search for the nature and limits of knowledge,
Russell was a leader in the revival of the philosophy of empiricism in the larger
field of epistemology. In Our Knowledge of the External World (1926)
andInquiry into Meaning and Truth (1962), he attempted to explain all factual
knowledge as constructed out of immediate experiences. Among his other
books are The ABC of Relativity (1925), Education and the Social
Order (1932), A History of Western Philosophy (1945), The Impact of Science
upon Society (1952), My Philosophical Development (1959), War Crimes in
Vietnam(1967), and The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell (3 volumes, 1967-
1969).
He wrote many popular essays, some of which have been collected in books
likeWhy I Am Not a Christian and Mysticism and Logic. He received the Nobel
Prize for Literature in 1950.

Russell’s Views on Religion and Theology

Religion and Theology
Russell's ethical outlook and his personal courage in facing controversies were certainly
informed by his religious upbringing, principally by his paternal grandmother who instructed him
with theBiblical injunction, "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil", something he says
influenced him throughout his life.

For most of his adult life, however, Russell thought it very unlikely that there was a God, and
he maintained that religionis little more than superstition and, despite any positive effects that
religion might have, it is largely harmful to people. He believed religion and the religious outlook
(he considered communism and other systematic ideologies to be species of religion) serve to
impede knowledge, foster fear and dependency, and are responsible for much of the war,
oppression, and misery that have beset the world.
In his 1949 speech, "Am I an Atheist or an Agnostic?", Russell expressed his difficulty over
whether to call himself anatheist or an agnostic:
As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should
say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there
is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the
other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street
I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot
prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there
are not the Homeric gods.
Though he would later question God's existence, he fully accepted the ontological
argument during his undergraduate years,:
I remember the precise moment, one day in 1894, as I was walking along Trinity
Lane [at Cambridge University where Russell was a student], when I saw in a flash
(or thought I saw) that the ontological argument is valid. I had gone out to buy a tin
of tobacco; on my way back, I suddenly threw it up in the air, and exclaimed as I
caught it: "Great Scott, the ontological argument is sound!"
This quote has been used by many theologians over the years, such as by Louis Pojman in
his Philosophy of Religion, who wish for readers to believe that even a well-known atheist-
philosopher supports this particular argument for God's existence.
 Russell also made an influential analysis of the omphalos hypothesis enunciated byPhilip
Henry Gosse—that any argument suggesting that the world was created as if it were already in
motion could just as easily make it a few minutes old as a few thousand years:
There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five
minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past.
There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing
that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world
began five minutes ago.
As a young man, Russell had a decidedly religious bent, himself, as is evident in his
early Platonism. He longed for eternaltruths, as he makes clear in his famous essay, "A Free Man's
Worship", widely regarded as a masterpiece of prose, but a work that Russell came to dislike.
While he rejected thesupernatural, he freely admitted that he yearned for a deeper meaning to
life.
Russell's views on religion can be found in his popular book, Why I Am Not a Christian and
Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects. Its title essay was a talk given on March 6, 1927 at
Battersea Town Hall, under the auspices of the South London Branch of the National Secular
Society, UK, and published later that year as a pamphlet. The book also contains other essays in
which Russell considers a number of logical arguments for the existence of God, including the first
cause argument, thenatural-law argument, the argument from design, and moral arguments. He
also discusses specifics about Christian theology.
His Conclusion
Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown
and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by
you in all your troubles and disputes. […] A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage;
it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the
words uttered long ago by ignorant men.

Different Aspects of Russell’s Personality

Bertrand Russell, whose name shines like a star in the world of philosophy and literature, was
a great British philosopher of the 20th century. He was a multi-dimensional personality and his
repute had many aspects. He was a scientist, philosopher, mathematician and a humanist. His
thoughts and works have left indelible imprints on the intellectual history of the modern world.
With his keen and sensitive vision, he observed every aspect and every color of life and practically
took part in the affairs of life to know human problems and their solution. He was a lover of
humanity. He tried to make man ponder over his status and station, and budge from victimizing
and perishing his own species.

Russell was an outstanding mathematician and his contribution in mathematics is a

milestone in this field. His Principa Mathatica written in collaboration with White-head, printed
in 1913, in three volumes is a landmark in the history of mathematics. This glorious work by him
has granted him a noble status among the scientists and mathematicians of world. His deep
interest and proficiency in science and mathematics developed a philosophic approach in his
mind and he made a high-ranking philosopher of his time. He always insisted to solve all the
enigmas and problems of life with the tool of logic. He relied on logic and believed that the light
of logic could guide a person on all the paths of life.
 Russell was a person who did not confine his feeling and endeavors to a certain field. He did
not devote his life to the intricacies of science and complexities of mathematics. Rather he eyed
the beauties of life and noticed the threats to this beauty. His mind studied the enigmas of science
but his heart throbbed for the humans all around. It was his special inclination towards humanity
that he came out of his scientific world to observe and feel the human problems. That is why he
not only produced scientific work but also wrote on social, political, human, economic and moral
issues of the modern world.
Russell as a Humanist
Russell was born with a scientific brain and human heart. He felt all the sentiments of life.
According to him life was the unique phenomenon in the cosmos. He believed that universe was
a collection of phenomena and among them life was most charming phenomenon. This most
beautiful picture of the album of universe is vandalized and spoiled by the man himself. It is man
who unnecessarily takes on his fellows. He commits blunders, makes excesses and slaughters his
own fellow beings. His unwanted greed and lust leads to horrible wars, which swallow the human
blood and engulf human flesh. So Russell appeals to the good nature of man to teach him not to
harm others. They should not be enemy of each other. He wants to see this world a cradle of peace
and love, in which man’s bosom is filled with love and affection, not hatred and venom for others.
Russell was strictly opposed to monarchy. He strongly flays on the monarchy system that
binds humans in the chains of slavery. It is monarchy that humiliates and snatches the rights of
humanity. At the same time, Russell also condemns the rule of church as it backs monarchy.
Being a philosopher, Russell does not believe in religion. In the history of Europe, the term
humanism was introduced and propagated after Renaissance. He believed that humanism
considered in the light of religion was limited and restricted. He defines humanism in a wider
sense, without religious restrictions. According to him man is responsible for his good or bad
deeds. There is no spiritual power to govern the human deeds. Russell strongly believes in reason
and does not believe in some divine system to control human life.
Modern age is the age of democracy. Many countries of the world are running democratic
system successfully. But, there is a presentiment that hostile nations may kick off war at any time.
Russell believes that world is divided into groups based on race and creed. This difference has
generated an antagonism among humans. In his book “New Hopes for a Changing World” he
writes:
“One of the most obstinate and difficult of the problems to be resolved if a stable world
government is to become possible is the hostility which is apt to arise between different
races. When I speak of the races I mean genuine biological varieties of the human species,
not the attitude of the Americans of English descent to the Red Indians was different
from that of the English to the French, as is shown in the saying “The only good Red
Indian is the Indian. (New Hopes)
Again he writes about slave trades:
“There has been one of the most shameful chapters in the history of the nominally
Christian nations. The horrors of the slave trade are familiar. The life of a slave might
or might not be one of hardships. As a rule household slaves were fairly well treated,
but plantation slaves were cruelly exploited. The slave trade was stopped at the
beginning of nineteenth century and slavery was ended by the civil war. But the color
population remained and remains subject to intolerable hardships, injustices and
cruelties.”
 At that time, the treatment meted out to Jews at the hands of Nazis was also outrageous. They
were exterminated brutally, which was inhuman and condemnable.
Creeds and Ideologies
According to Russell creed and ideology are two words with the same meaning. Ideology is
the system of ideas characterizing a party, while creed is a system of beliefs. Russell finds no
difference in ideology and creed. Mankind is divided into different groups and sections due to
difference of ideologies. The different ideologies or beliefs have created an unwanted antagonism
among human beings. The poison of disparate beliefs is lethal to humanity. When this poison
enters the blood of humans, it deprives them of their good nature and drives them on the paths of
bigotry and violence. The big wars and bloody clashes between different nations have been due to
difference of creeds or ideologies. A big example is the war of Crusade between the Muslims and
the Christians fought for a long time. In the 20th century, two great wars were fought due
communism and capitalism, extermination humanity in a dreadful way. Russell felt deeply this
large-scale destruction of humanity and condemned it strongly. He was a propagator of peace, he
was preacher of fraternity, so he deplored the annihilation and emphasized tolerance, forbearance
and harmony. In this way Russell proved himself as the apostle of peace and lover of humanity.
As a Pacifist
Russell always detested wars. He criticizes and denounces the hostile nations who find solace
in taking up arms and going to battlefields to solve their problems. Violence breeds violence. A
war gives way to other wars. We cannot find the solutions to problems in human assassination.
Russell wanted to see peace and harmony prevailing all over the world. He detested wars and
bloody clashes engulfing the humans savagely. He vehemently protested against British
government when it joined war against Germany in the First World War. He came on front as
pacifist but was caught and imprisoned by the government. But this imprisonment could not
shake his resolve and commitment to humanity. He remained firm and did not succumb to any
pressure or high handedness. He stuck to his ideas and maintained his point of view in the Second
World War. To eliminate wars in the world forever he stressed on the presence of one super power
in world. There must be a super state with no adversary. And it is possible
if America overcomes Russia, orRussia topples the America to become supreme power in the
world. However he prefers America on Russia because Americais better state in every respect and
has ability to rule the world. Russian domination shall drive the world into hell. He says:
“There are even more important reasons for preferring a victory of America. I am
not contending that capitalism is better than communism. My reason for siding
with America is that in that country there is more respect than in Russia for the
things that I value in a civilized way of life. The things have in mind are such as
freedom of thought, freedom of inquiry, freedom of discussion and human feeling.
What a victory ofRussia would mean is easily to be seen in Poland. There were
flourishing Universities inPoland, containing men of great intellectual eminence.
Some of these men, fortunately, escaped. The rest disappeared. Education is now
reduced to learning the formula of Stalinist Orthodoxy.”
(New Hopes for a Changing World. P. 94)
The above-described thoughts give an ample proof of Russell to be a strong believer of
intellectual freedom. At the same time he is so firm in his favor of Americathat he holds right to
use force againstRussia by the Alliance powers of the free world.
In the Second World War, the mass destruction caused by atomic bombs was evident to the
whole world. The unprecedented devastation caused by atomic devices shocked the whole human
race. Russell strictly condemned this act, for which he had to suffer imprisonment. Again, in 1962,
when nuclear war was to kick off between two super powers because of Cubacrisis, he played a
memorable role as the world pioneer of peace. Through his convincing letter, written to the heads
of both super powers, he succeeded to dissuade them from carrying out a horrible folly. He was
able to convince them that nuclear war would annihilate mankind on a large scale on the planet
and all the achievement attained by man would be wiped out. This glorious act of Russell grants
him an unmatched glory of character. He appeared as prophet of peace and saved humanity from
most horrible devastation. He appeared to be not only a prophet of peace but as benefactor of
mankind too.
He showed the man a way to solve their problem without waging war. He proved that pen is
more effective than a gun. He always diffused tension with his speech and fought against two
worst enemies of humanity---- bigotry and narrow mindedness.
Russell’s intellectual vision was fairly wide. He was convinced of the nobility of man. He said
that man was the noblest creation and he was the real beauty of the universe. But this cosmos is
infinite and our earth is just a speck in this huge system. The life appeared on the earth due to
favorable environment. Earth was situated at a great distance from the sun. The small heat
reaching to earth from sun is conducive to life. The sun is source of energy to earth. If we cross O
zone or go deep into the earth, life again becomes impossible. Earth is dependant on sun the gets
energy and heat from it. If sun goes cold, life on earth will freeze. So life is subject to suitable
environment and circumstances like other things, which cannot survive in non-favorable
conditions. Russell negates the old traditional dogma that man is the center of Universe. Planets
in the universe are countless like the specks of sand in a desert. Our earth is such a speck.
Russell wants man to crash out his self-styled shell of self and ego. He wants him to abandon
self-glorification and cast a rational look on life and its wants. The idol of ego and self-
centeredness has parted man from man. To bring men closer to men it calls for to leave obnoxious
ethnic, racial and geographical prejudice.
Russell has praised the fortitude and stoicism of Boethius who wrote his great book “The
Consolation of Philosophy” in the days of his imprisonment. In his writing he adopted a style,
which had a majestic grandeur mingled with sweet reasonableness. He wrote the anthology with
such nonchalance and content, as he was still a powerful prime minister. He described the
pleasure of contemplation; the delight of world beauty and hopes of mankind, which did not, left
him. Boethius had been in public administration but won a disfavor due to which he was
sentenced to death. He was sure to be executed yet he did not loose courage. He completed his
great book in jail, which according to Russell is more useful in the present age.
His War against Dogmatism and Superstition
Russell did not believe in religion. He was strictly against dogmatism. His deep scientific
knowledge and high philosophic approach had given him a mindset to dispel traditional dogmas,
which had been adopted by superstitious and narrow-minded people. In his “Unpopular Essays”
under “An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish,” he expresses his repulsion for the follies of man. He
is not ready to admit the fact that man is a rational animal. Rather, in the light of his own
experiences, he says:
“Through a long life I have looked diligently for evidence in favor of this statement,
but so for I have not had the good fortune to come across it.”
On the other side he says that he has seen great nation and formerly leaders of civilized
nations, who were led astray by nonsensical declamatory speeches. Further, he says that he has
sensed the bitterness and pain of cruelty, persecution and the follies superstition. All these ills are
growing rapidly which is deplorable.
Russell regards the Age of Faith as the age of ignorance as the illogical and absurd teachings.
They burnt many thousand hags alive for their deeds repugnant to Christianity. It was surprising
for Russell to see men punished for their sins through calamities and famines. The narrow minded
Clergy and their followers rejected every new discovery and invention as it was contrary to their
faith. The Greek research that the earth is round was rejected due to the presence of antipodes. It
was sacrilegious to believe that there were men at the antipodes. Again, when Benjamin Franklin
invented the lightening rod, the Clergy both in England and Americacondemned it as a wicked
attempt to defeat the will of God. Clergy believed that lightening is the tool of God to punish the
sinners, however, the whip of lightening is not for the pious. There for Benjamin Franklin was not
justified to be against the will of God. For a long time people has been sacrificing their children to
avoid the anger of Maloch, the god of sacrifice, which was strictly against the canons of humanity.
All these foolish and cruel acts, which were fruits of superstition and dogmatism, have
tortured and damaged human civilization greatly. Russell vehemently condemns such dogmas,
some of which are still prevalent. If man sticks to such superstitious beliefs and does not discards
such irrational practices, he can never attain the absolute happiness and contentment.
Russell tells us that the best way of getting rid of the folly of dogmatism is to be well aware of
the opinions rampant in social circles, different from your own and try to know their logical truth.
Travel can bring you closer to the people and help diminish the intensity of prejudice. If traveling
is not possible than make a liaison with the people with whom you disagree or read the newspaper
belonging to the party you dislike. Using this way you can broaden you outlook. For the people
who are psychologically imaginative, it is good to make an imaginary argument with a person
having a different point of view. The great Hindu leader of India, Mahatma Gandhi was opposed
to railways, steamboats and machinery. If you fell into an imaginary discussion with Gandhi, you
can easily judge his viewpoint. Again to judge the conviction of your own arguments you can
imagine what Gandhi might have said to negate you views.
The orthodox object to cremation as it burns the spiritless human body, which is to be reborn
on the judgment day. This objection indicates an insufficient faith in the omnipotence of God. It
was thought to be difficult for God to recreate a burnt body on the judgment day in its real shape.
This thought touches the boundaries of blasphemy. Russell regards this objection as ridiculous
and baseless. He contends if God created a human body with most complicated systems, He can
rebuilt the burnt body and infuse psyche into it on the judgment day without a pinch of difficulty.
To doubt the powers of God is nothing but a blasphemy.
The church was against the dissection of corpse to view the intricate body systems as it was
for the study of medicine. Vesalims, the court physician was the pioneer of dissection. He was an
accomplished physician and his medical skill protected the emperor against bodily ailments. But
after the emperor’s death, he was sentenced to pilgrimage to the Holy Land, by the church.

Till the 18th century, the cause of insanity was attributed to devil. The only way to get rid of
this ill was to beat the devil so that to beat the patient. So the persecuted the devil, (the patient)
was beaten savagely. But sometimes, this treatment did not work and the patient had to suffer
without any rhyme and reason. This treatment was given to King George III, who was insane, but
was not cured at all. In that age, the fallacies and discrimination of race and blood were common.
The Nazis had adopted them as their creed. But all these were self-created myths. According to
Russell there was no pure race in the world. In America, the colored races are considered inferior
to the others in respect of intelligence. But those who measure intelligence are unable to know the
reality of distinction.
 Russell also discovered the causes of superstition. It is actually the influence of great fear,
which makes the men superstitious. The sailors, who threw Jonah overboard, took his presence
on boat as the cause of storm. When Maloch demanded the children of aristocrats to sacrifice to
him, the Carthaginians deceived him by offering the children of lower strata for the sacrifice. This
annoyed Maloch and he inflicted defeat on them. However they did not change their way and
never offered their own children for the sacrifice. As a result they again met defeat at the hands of
Romans.
When fear prevails over masses, they become nervous and disturbed and do anything to get
rid of this fear. Fear generates the impulse of cruelty and they justify every nonsensical and fierce
thing to discard this fear. This is actually superstition. During the French revolution people went
desperate and it gave way to absurd cruelties in the beginning. Had this revolution met less
hostility from outside, it would have been less fierce. So we can sum up that the human history
has been full of intellectual rubbish. Russel, throughout his life, struggled to eliminate such follies
from human mind. So he indicated the hidden causes of dogmas analyzed them on psychological
basis with absolute ability.

An Introduction to Russell’s Position

It is pertinent to give a brief introduction of Russell’s philosophy. Though this
introduction has nothing to do with our main concern i.e. “The Conquest of Happiness”
but a glimpse of his philosophic position will more facilitate us to know distinctly about
the social, moral and political aspects of his life.

To start with, Russell initiated his philosophic career when he was a student
inTrinity College at Cambridge, at the end of nineteenth century. The intellectual
atmosphere at that time was Hegalian. M. C. Taggart was the great exponent of Hegalian
philosophy. According to Hegal the universe is a unity in spite of diversity found in it. On
the basis of his theory he always tried to see everything in the mirror of reality and to
equate reality wit logic. He attached much importance to logic, which we find at the core
of logic. Logic according to Hegal is a process by which we deduce from our experience of
the actual the categories that describe the absolute.
Hegal’s philosophy holds the doctrine of internal relations, which describes that the
world is inherently a unity and not a multiplicity this doctrine is based upon subject
predicate logic, and this is an important point for present discussion.
Russell was much influenced by Hegal’s philosophy in the beginning, but later, his
deep interest in mathematics gradually changed his mind. Whereas Hegal and his
followers believed in the philosophy of internal relations, Russell adopted the theory of
external relations according to which the world was not unity but multiplicity. So he
endeavored to discover the realistic position of science and common sense.
The very first book, which expounds his philosophy, is “The Problems of Philosophy”
which was published in 1912. In this book he tried to negate the Berkeley’s Subjective
Idealism that the external world is an idea. Russell holds that it is actually our sensation
that poses a medium between the external world and us. Thus he defined three basic
elements for human knowledge. These are sense data, sensation and physical object.
 In the book “Our Knowledge of the External world” he modified his theory and
ignored the physical object. It was to strike economy in understanding the world under
the influence of doctrine enunciated by Monk O’ Cam Razor that entities are not to be
multiplied without necessities. So he ruled out physical object, which he called a logical
construction in the “Problem of Philosophy”.
The third phase of his philosophical career can be observed in his book “Analysis of
Mind” which appeared in 1921. In this book he further modified his theory and ignored
sense data. After elimination of the two, only sensations remained. Thus he constructed
the world out of sensations. He enunciated that the fundamental stuff of the world is
neither matter nor mind but a neutral stuff, which reduced the philosophy to Neutral
Monism. He applied the results and deduction of science and philosophy to prove the
scientific and logical validity of his theory. According to Russel, matter was coming more
and more immaterial in modern physics. Matter is not tangible stuff, seen or touched by
us. Rather, it is now considered as system of events, which is contrary to the general
definition of matter. On the other hand matter is becoming more and more material under
the influence of Behaviorism. The construction of the world and the mind is reduced to
the laws of perspectives. The world gives innumerable appearances from different angles,
whether they are observed or not. All these assorted appearances of the world make a
history of world in time. The appearances of the world show themselves whether there is
some observer or not. In any case these appearances make history at different
perspectives. Thus matter and mind correlate to make a combination of perspectives and
history, which they make in time. If they are grouped into one perspective, the neutral
stuff appears as matter. And if they are taken into another perspective, it appears to be
mind. Mind and matter, therefore identified with one another and lost their traditional
duality. As a philosopher, Russel’s position seems to be sceptic, with regard to religion
and the ultimate purpose of the universe. Practically his position as humanist is more
lucid and granted.

Russell as a Prose Writer

Bertrand Russell is by all respects, a productive prose writer, who wrote abundantly. He is
the prominent writer of present century who wrote on a variety of subjects of human interest, with
great zeal and zest. He expressed his acumen and writing power in a forceful and logical style. He
wrote almost on everything and there was hardly a human problem, which remained untouched
by him.

Basically he was a mathematician and his grand, epoch-making contribution to his subject
was published in three volumes. Principa Mathematica in collaboration with professor
Whitehaed, which is verily a landmark in the history of mathematics. His scientific and
mathematical skill together endowed him with approach to speak and write with perfect
proficiency.
The fineness and beauty of his style depends mainly on clarity of his thoughts. There is no
confusion or complexity. A rich coffer of knowledge made him upright and honest in his opinions.
Whenever Russell takes to writing on a subject, he adopts a systematic way for a successful
production. About his own method of writing, he says:
 “If I were to write upon some rather difficult topic, the best plan is to think about is
with very great interest------ the great intensity of which I am capable----- for a few
hours or days, and at the end of that time give orders, so to speak, that the work is
to proceed under ground. After some months, I return consciously to the topic and
find that the work has been done. Before I had discovered this technique, I used to
spend the intervening months worrying because I was making no progress, I arrived
at the solution none the sooner for this worry and the intervening months were
wasted, whereas now I can devote to other pursuits.
(The Conquest of Happiness, page 50).
The above-mentioned reference indicates that Russell was convinced of clarity of thought and
fluency of expression. His thoughts were always clear and his style always chaste, transparent and
lucid. The clarity of thought and neatness of expression were the two things, out of which, he
developed a charming style, which left indelible imprints on the reader’s mind.
Unity of Thoughts
The second salient feature of Russell’s style is the unity of thought. The discipline of logic and
mathematics taught him the principle of unity of thought. Like a mathematical premise, his
arguments start from a well-affirmed basic assumption and then he proceeds step by step to the
logical conclusion of his arguments. A fine coherence exists in his arguments. Each argument is
related to the preceding one like the anxious of Euclid. So the conclusion drawn is the logical
outcome of his arguments.
The Exact Use of Words
Russell’s ideal scientific inclination enables him to make an exact and perfect use of words.
He uses words, which are rich, pure, clear and transparent. There is no ambiguity or obscurity. If
some ambiguity occurs somewhere he clarifies it in the following sentences. He avoids excessive
use of words. He words are small in number but rich in meaning. He avoids empty rhetoric, and
produces a charm of writing with modest use of words.
Long Sentences
Russell usually uses lengthy and elaborate sentences to maintain his unity of thought. He is
fully aware of this aspect of his style and therefore does not let the length of sentence harm the
fluency of writing. From beginning to the end, his thoughts go steadily, and with pleasant rhythm
and coherence. His style poses a medium though which his thoughts flow smoothly. There is not
dullness, but sweetness in his writing, relished by the readers.
Simplicity of Language
Setting aside bombastic and pompous language, he insists on simplicity and effect of
expression. He hardly uses excessive synonymous words to make the sentence tedious and
tasteless. That is why his writing is not monotonous and dull, rather sweet and pleasant, relished
interestingly by the readers. He adopts convincing and simple style which touch the core of
reader’s heart directly. He rarely uses excessive synonyms to make the sentence monotonous and
boring. However his sentences are long and dilated. He unfurls his thoughts through the long
sentences to preserve the unity of thought. Russell could not help it because he wrote on solemn
and grave subjects, which demanded an interlinked unity of thoughts and arguments. It is not an
easy job to dwell upon sober and grave subjects and maintaining the simplicity of description and
clarity of thoughts. But Russell manipulated it with proficiency. He diminished the gravity of
subject with simplicity and lucidity of words and produced a style, which was unique but familiar,
scholarly and easy.
Seriousness
Almost all his writings retain the seriousness of the subject, but as we have pointed out earlier,
his writing does not bear his personal emotional effect. He was among the greatest humanists of
20th century who deeply felt the pain and problems of humanity. He set forth a practical
philosophy of human life and all his life preached for it. But again he was a not a traditional
preacher like an old type dogmatic clergy. It was his intellectual vision, broadmindedness and
impersonal attitude towards human problems, which made him a sober, prolific and high profile
writer. The deepness of his outlook actually made his style heart-felt and effective. He was much
concerned for the humanity surrounded by horrible problems. There was a possible danger of
nuclear war after the invention of nuclear weapons, world population was growing at an alarming
rate, natural resources were running out fast and the likelihood of calamities and famines was
hanging like Damocles sword on the head of humanity.
Furthermore the endless ideological clash between the two great super powers of the world
and its formidable effects on mankind, particularly on the developing countries did not let him
attain a peace of mind. He sensed the danger of all these problems on and clamored for it through
his writing. He also deplored the follies of man done in the past and showed his deep concern for
the imminent calamities. His heart was teeming with sympathy and love for humanity. He
contemplated on the human follies, problems and hardships and always thought of their
solutions.
His Humor and Satire
A serious discussion, how much important it may be, makes a write-up dull and boring. In
spite of high seriousness, Russell’s style is tinged with cheerfulness and humor. His writing bears
a highly intellectual and scholarly style, with a humorous touch. But his humor does not go
outrageous or overboard. His writing never becomes disgusting rather is remains optimistic and
lively with a ray of hope. This humor has a reformative aspect, which not only pinpoints human
blunders, but also suggests a solution, with a hope for improvement in future. For example, when
describing the opposition of the clergy against the scientific inventions towards the end of
nineteenth century, when Franklininvented the lightning rod, he writes:
“When Benjamin Franklin invented the lightning rod, the Clergy both
in England andAmerica, with enthusiastic support of God to punish impiety or some
other grave sin---- the virtuous are never struck by lightning. Therefore if God wants
to strike anyone, Benjamin Franklin ought not to defeat His design, indeed to do so
is to help criminals to escape. But was equal to the occasion. If we are believe the
eminent Dr. Price, one of the leading divines ofBoston. Lightning having been
rendered ineffectual by the iron points invented by the sagacious Dr. Franklin,
Massachusetts was shaken by earthquakes, which Dr. Price perceived to be due to
God’s wrath at the Iron Point.’ In a sermon on the subject he said, “In Boston are
more erected than elsewhere in New England, and Boston seems to be of God
Apparently, however, Providence gave up all hopes of curing Boston of its
wickedness, for though lightning rods became more and more common,
earthquakes in Massachusetts have remained rare. Nevertheless, Dr. Price’s point of
view, or something very like it, was still held by one of the most influential men of
recent times. When there were several bad earthquakes in India, Mahatma Gandhi
solemnly warned his compatriots that these disasters had been sent as punishment
for their sins.” (Unpopular Essay page 85-86) The above detailed account shows
sharpness of his humor and satire using which, how beautifully he exposes he follies
of dogmatism.
Ornate Style
Though Russell’s style is generally marked with clarity and brevity, yet he a capable of writing
florid and embellished language, to prove his artistic command on writing. His only celebrated
essay “The Free Man “Worship” published in his book Mysticism and Logic is a nice expression of
his flowery and ornate style, which is an ample proof of his nice taste and command on English
language.
Most of his writings are thoughtful and argumentative in nature, but it does not mar his
clarity and fluency. The unity of thoughts pours out of his pen with a symmetry and harmony to
make his description weighty and chaste. The excellent example of Russell’s descriptive style is
seen in his own autobiography. It describes his life history narrated in an attractive, simple and
appealing way, which is read by the readers with great interest.

In short: Russell can be regarded as one of the greatest prose-writers of 20th century, who
wrote on a variety of subjects relating to human life with a great writing skill. Clarity, simplicity,
fluency and harmony are the salient features of his style. He skillfully expresses unity of thought
along with his unity of style.

Caveats about the Conquest of Happiness

Today's readers must realize thatConquest is a product of its times. Russell was
considered to be a liberal and open-minded man of his day, but he could not have
anticipated the sensibilities of these days. Many statements in Conquest would be
considered sexist or racist today. Stereotyped gender roles are assumed without apology,
and "man" is often used as a synonym for "human".

Hypothetical examples are almost always of males, unless some stereotypic quality of
women is being referred to. (If you can overlook the patriarchal form of Russell's
language, what he says is often surprisingly feminist. "The relation of the mother to the
child will have in the future to resemble more and more that which at present the father
has, if women's lives are to be freed from unnecessary slavery.")
Statements about blacks or other non European races, though not hostile, clearly
assume that the reader does not belong to these races. Statements that mention Jews tend
to be complimentary, but are stereotypes nonetheless. It is better to propose that we
simply emend the text in our minds, adding inclusive language as necessary, rather than
berate Russell for the shortcomings of his era.
Almost any statement that Russell makes about animals is a projection. Consider, for
example, the first line of the book: "Animals are happy so long as they have health and
enough to eat." Did he acquire this knowledge through conversation or by telepathy?
Animals frequently play for Russell the role that "the noble savage" played for Rousseau;
they represent nature unaffected by civilization.
The Conquest of Happiness contains a number of historical misperceptions that were
common among liberal intellectuals of the day. For example, the Soviet Union was
thought to be a grand experiment, with no hint of the police state horrors that we are now
so well aware of. "The creation of an organization may be of supreme importance. So is
the work of those few statesmen who have devoted their lives to producing order out of
chaos, of whom Lenin is the supreme type in our day." Again, it is suggested that we
should simply shake our heads and move on.
Psychological terminology has changed greatly in the last eight decades. Nervous
fatigue, for example, refers to a variety of conditions that we now might
call depressionor stress or chronic anxiety. Fortunately, Russell uses a number of
hypothetical examples, so it is usually not difficult to guess what his psychological
terminology must mean.
Russell wrote this book long before the advent of anti-depressant drugs, and so he
cannot be expected to know or discuss the physiological aspects of happiness and
unhappiness. (Though he does speculate "Perhaps when biochemistry has made further
advances we shall all be able to take tablets that will ensure our having an interest in
everything.") The extent to which attitude, mood, or temperament is the result of brain
chemistry or genetic makeup is something that a man of 1930 could not have understood
as well as we do today.
Further caveats are given by Russell in the first chapter: "I shall confine my attention
to those who are not subject to any extreme cause of outward misery." In other words, if
you object that Russell's prescriptions are not adequate to find happiness for people in
abject poverty, in great physical pain, or subject to persecution of one sort or another,
Russell would probably have agreed with you. He also acknowledges that the causes of
much unhappiness:
"lie partly in the social system, partly in individual psychology -- which,
of course, is itself to a considerable extent a product of the social system. I
have written before about the changes in the social system required to
promote happiness. Concerning the abolition of war, of economic
exploitation, or education in cruelty and fear, it is not my intention to speak
in this volume."

Themes in the Conquest of Happiness

The “Conquest of Happiness" is Bertrand Russell's recipe for good living. First published in
1930, it pre-dates the current obsession with self-help by decades. Leading the reader step by step
through the causes of unhappiness and the personal choices, compromises and sacrifices that
(may) lead to the final, affirmative conclusion of "The Happy Man", this is popular philosophy, or
even self-help, as it should be written.
Certain themes come up again and again in the book, The Conquest of Happiness in different
forms. Three have been collected here; the readers may notice others.
Does the Modern World Work Against Happiness?
Russell consistently argues that the modern world, the world created by science and reason,
works for happiness, not against it. It is in our power to be free of many of the sources of
unhappiness: boredom, self-defeating moral codes, pointless superstitions, fear of starvation, etc.
Only in the chapter on envy does Russell acknowledge that the modern world presents unique
challenges to happiness, by making us aware of so many people who have things and talents that
we lack.
A more balanced view is that (by increasing our power) science and technology have exposed
us to temptations that earlier generations did not have to worry about. If we rise to the challenge
and overcome these temptations, our chances for happiness are greater than those of previous
generations. If we succumb to the temptations, we will be less happy.
The key metaphor here is the story of aboriginal peoples who drink themselves to death once
the white man makes alcohol easily available to them. Because we can satisfy our basic needs and
generate excitement and entertainment easily, we modern people are open to the following
addictive cycle: satiation leading to boredom leading to easy but superficial titillation leading back
to satiation. Nothing in this cycle leads to real happiness, but it is difficult to break out of.
A similar temptation involves work. Moralists in an agricultural society can fulminate about
the evils of idleness without harmful effect, since night and winter guarantee everyone sufficient
rest and leisure. Today, however, we are confronted with the temptation to prove our "virtue" by
working 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. When we fail to do this, we may feel guilty. We need to
balance work and leisure consciously, and this requires us to be wiser than our ancestors. If we
are not wiser, we fall prey to an unhappiness that circumstances once rendered impossible.
The Outerward-Focused Life Versus the Inward-Focused Life
Russell is very clear that the outward-focused life is the only one that leads to happiness.
"Where outward circumstances are not definitely unfortunate, a man should be able to achieve
happiness, provided that his passions and interests are directed outward, not inward." (And yet,
some of his advice -- particularly concerning the sense of sin in Chapter 7 or worry in Chapter 5 -
- would seem to require a great deal of introspection.) All happiness, he says in Chapter 1, depends
on "natural zest and appetite for possible things". These are active, rather than passive traits.
There would seem to be no room here for passive or contemplative sources of happiness. Later in
the book he says: "We are all prone to the malady of the introvert, who, with the manifold spectacle
of the world spread out before him, turns away and gazes only upon the emptiness within. But let
us not imagine that there is anything grand about the introvert's unhappiness."
His dismissal of the monastic life (which is in many ways not all that different from the
academic life) struck us as abrupt and condescending: "The monk will not be happy until the
routine of the monastery has made him forget his own soul. The happiness which he attributes to
religion he could have obtained from being a crossing-sweeper, provided he were compelled to
remain one. External discipline is the only road to happiness for those unfortunates whose self-
absorption is too profound to be cured in any other way."
If this devaluing of the inner life seems puzzling, part of the answer lies in the way that Russell
draws the boundary between internal and external pursuits. Much of his life was devoted to
mathematics and philosophy, pursuits that most of us would classify as passive and contemplative
-- not all that different from theology. In particular, the early work that made his name (Principia
Mathematica, which he coauthored with Alfred North Whitehead, who later founded process
theology) was focused on the logical roots of mathematics and the possibility of finding absolutely
certain knowledge there. One could imagine looking on this activity as a spiritual quest, an
introspection into the laws that governed his own thinking. To Russell, though, this was an
external pursuit.
A great source of happiness is centered on those moments in life when the boundaries
between the internal world and the external world seem meaningless. In the contemplation of
great art, for example, external object and internal response form an undifferentiated whole.
Russell would claim these experiences for the external world, while others might claim them for
the internal world.
A further clue lies in statements in Chapter 1 about Russell's own path to happiness:
"Gradually I learned to be indifferent to myself and my deficiencies; I came to center my attention
increasingly on external objects." Contemplation of the self seems (to Russell) inescapably
connected with contemplation of the deficiencies of the self. In Buddhist terms, this would not be
a contemplation of the self at all, but of the ego, the self image. Russell appears to see no difference
between contemplating the self (which Buddhists are taught to do in an open, accepting manner)
and judging the self image. The examples of self-absorption that Russell gives -- the sinner, the
narcissist, and the megalomaniac -- are all absorbed in judging their self-images.
Even in Christian terms Russell does an injustice to the contemplative life. One can certainly
find numerous stories of Christian saints absorbed by their sense of guilt and unworthiness in the
face of God's judgment. This is balanced, however, by the saints who describe the ecstasies they
experience as objects of God's love. The annals of crossing-sweepers contain no comparable
testimony.
In short, Russell inappropriately universalizes his childhood experiences of Christianity and
Christian contemplation, and enlarges these experiences to encompass religion and the
contemplative life in general. His desire to see nothing of value in the contemplative life causes
him to draw the line between the internal and external world in an unusual way.
Transcending Personal Hopes and Interests
None of the chapters of Conquest of Happiness directly confronts the fear of death, which is
undoubtedly one of the great obstacles to happiness. In Chapter 2 Russell leaves unchallenged the
notion that death makes all our long-term hopes vain, and argues only that the present is sufficient
for happiness. Late in the book, however, it becomes clear that Russell does have long-term hopes
and an answer to the fear of death. The sections of the text that put these views forward are largely
tangential to the chapters in which they appear -- as if Russell sees the end of the book
approaching and regrets not having brought these ideas up sooner, but does not want to rewrite
earlier chapters to include them.
The central concept here isunconquerable hope, which Russell presents in Chapter 16 as
leading to the positive kind of resignation, through which you come to accept the unavoidable
imperfections and inadequacies of the world. "Hope which is to be unconquerable must be large
and impersonal. Whatever my personal activities, I may be defeated by death or by certain kinds
of diseases; I may be overcome by enemies; I may find that I have embarked upon an unwise
course which cannot lead to success. In a thousand ways the failure of purely personal hopes may
be unavoidable, but if personal aims have been part of larger hopes for humanity, there is not the
same utter defeat when failure comes." A man motivated by these larger hopes "may be forced to
realize that what he has worked for will not come about in his lifetime. But he need not on that
account sink into complete despair, provided that he is interested in the future of mankind apart
from his own participation in it."
The unconquerability of this hope is related to Russell's faith in the ultimate progress of
humankind. "If you have as part of the habitual furniture of your mind the past ages of man, his
slow and partial emergence out of barbarism, and the brevity of his total existence in comparison
with astronomical epochs -- if, I say, such thoughts have molded your habitual feelings ... you will
have, beyond your immediate activities, purposes that are distant and slowly unfolding, in which
you are not an isolated individual but one of the great army of those who have led mankind
towards a civilized existence. If you have attained to this outlook, a certain deep happiness will
never leave you, whatever your personal fate may be. Life will become a communion with the great
of all ages, and personal death no more than a negligible incident."
Russell uses the term greatness of soul to denote the ability to expand one's sense of self to
encompass humankind as a whole. "A man who has once perceived, however temporarily and
however briefly, what makes greatness of soul, can no longer be happy if he allows himself to be
petty, self-seeking, troubled by trivial misfortunes, dreading what fate may have in store for him.
The man capable of greatness of soul will open wide the windows of his mind, letting the winds
blow freely upon it from every portion of the universe. He will see himself and life and the world
as truly as our human limitations will permit; realizing the brevity and minuteness of human life,
he will realize also that in individual minds is concentrated whatever of value the known universe
contains. And he will see that the man whose mind mirrors the world becomes in a sense as great
as the world. In emancipation from the fears that beset the slave of circumstance he will
experience a profound joy, and through all the vicissitudes of his outward life he will remain in
the depths of his being a happy man."
We find ourselves wishing that Russell had said more about how greatness of soul is achieved.
This seems to be the central question of practical humanism: How (without God, an afterlife, or
any other mythological concept) do we attach ourselves to transpersonal interests so firmly that
we can face inevitable personal death with equanimity? Without an answer to this question, it
seems that the humanist is left to choose between a life-in-the-moment, ignoring the possibility
of death, and the Byronic unhappiness of Chapter 2.
The decades that followed Conquestchallenged this faith in ways that Russell could hardly
have imagined in 1930. Because it occurred at the center of civilization rather than on the
primitive periphery, the Holocaust brought into question the idea that humankind really is
progressing. And the atomic bomb opened the possibility that the human race might destroy itself
before it achieved any further progress. By the 1950s Russell's notion of "unconquerable hope"
seemed much more conquerable than he had anticipated.

Bertrand Russell and The Conquest of Happiness: A Critical Survey

Bertrand Russell was the most influential philosopher of the twentieth century, having
written some of the most seminal works in both mathematical logic and analytic philosophy.
During his long life, he was also one of the world's most celebrated public intellectuals. While
occasionally infamous for his unconventional views, he received many honors, including the
Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950.

Russell had a narrow view of the proper subject matter for philosophy. He came to believe
that even ethics was outside of philosophy's scope, for its main assertions were not empirically or
logically verifiable. This did not stop him from sharing his views on ethics or on many other
subjects, though he was careful to mention that he was not working in his capacity as a
philosopher when he did so. Russell's felicity of expression, not to mention a devilish wit, made
him popular with audiences who had little interest in his technical work. Several academic peers
evinced contempt for Russell's fame outside of philosophy, believing him insufficiently profound
and too glib. Among other things, he wrote about history, politics, education, marriage, atoms,
relativity, religion, and happiness.
It is the last of these subjects that we shall expand upon, focusing mainly on the themes of his
book, The Conquest of Happiness, first published in 1930. However, we should begin by saying
something about Russell's long life.
Background
Born in 1872 at the height of Britain's power, Russell had deep roots in the English
aristocracy. Several family members were historically significant, including his grandfather, John
Russell, who was prime minister in the mid-nineteenth century.
Russell's parents died when he was very young. Reared by his paternal grandmother and
educated by a series of private tutors, he was a bookish and lonely boy. He later wrote that only
his love of mathematics kept him from suicide. When he reached TrinityCollege at Cambridge, he
found others with similar interests, whereupon his life took on new meaning.
His interest in philosophy soon blossomed. At Cambridge, he came under the influence of

another student, G.E. Moore, with whom he would co-found the

analytic movement, and of his mathematics professor and mentor, Alfred North Whitehead, with
whom he would writePrincipia Mathematica, a multivolume monument on the logical
foundations of mathematics.
Cloistered in the academic world and dedicated to scholarly pursuits, Russell still found time
in 1894 to marry an American Quaker, Alys Smith. This would be the first of his four marriages.
He wrote a book on German democracy in 1896, soon followed by another on geometry.
Russell's political activism emerged when he supported the women's suffrage movement, and he
even stood for Parliament, though he lost. He became mentor to the other titan of twentieth-
century philosophy, Ludwig Wittgenstein, who took Russell's early interest in linguistic analysis
to the next level.
World War I seemed a tragic folly to Russell, and he joined the antiwar movement. In 1916,
he was thrown in jail for his polemics against the war. He was dismissed by his
beloved Trinity College, though he was eventually invited to return. While in jail for six months,
he completed the Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy,which remains a fine primer on the
subject.
Russell wrote scores of books and hundreds of essays. His most important work on
philosophy and logic was completed before 1930. He began to distance himself from the several
schools of thought that germinated from his own work, especially the ideas of Wittgenstein, whom
Russell thought had become too mystical. Having as a young man rejected belief in God as
unsupportable, Russell became increasingly critical of the influence of religion, which he thought
largely destructive. By 1940, his unorthodox and liberal views led to his being barred from
teaching an advanced course in mathematical logic at City College of New York.
While he believed that most wars are unnecessary, Russell was no pacifist. He strongly
favored defeating the Axis powers in World War II. After the Allied victory, he briefly advocated
war against the Soviet Union to preclude the dominance of communism, which he loathed. He
was essentially a democratic "guild socialist," as were many British intellectuals.
He soon abandoned his temporary hawkishness and became a principal in thenuclear-
disarmament movement and an advocate of world government. Russell became something of a
secular saint to the "New Left" in the 1960s, though he eventually let it be known that some
youthful radicals misused his name for causes he did not support. He was an ardent and
outspoken critic of America's military involvement in Vietnam. Russell died of pneumonia in 1970
at the age of 98.
It is evident from Russell's autobiographical material and correspondence that he had many
bouts with depression and that they diminished in frequency and intensity only after he reached
his fifties. Perhaps it is not altogether surprising that Russell would write about happiness, given
his own personal struggles for contentment. The subject was also in keeping with his general
outlook on ethical matters, informed partly by the writings of his godfather, John Stuart Mill, a
leading representative of the utilitarian school. There are several species of utilitarianism, but the
most common holds that the main goal of ethics is to spread the greatest amount of happiness to
the greatest number.
Russell was unaware of what we now know about depression, brain chemistry, and
pharmacology, so some of his thinking is old-fashioned. An avid student of science and admirer
of the scientific method, he would have been quick to adopt the prevailing scientific knowledge.
Some of his views on the sexes and other matters are antiquated, though it should be remembered
that Russell was at the leading edge of progressive thought in his day. Allowing for such things,
his The Conquest of Happiness is replete with observations and prescriptions grounded in
common sense, and many of his ideas hold up well. Moreover, his mastery of English prose and
his rapier wit make it easy and fun to read.
Russell did not write this book for people unable to remedy their circumstances, whether due
to the exigencies of poverty, oppression, mental illness and other diseases, or even tragic personal
circumstances. He was not so foolish as to believe that anyone could overcome any adversity. He
wrote it for people not beset with the most serious obstacles—those who were most likely to read
it in the first place. Furthermore, while he thought the absence of unhappiness was a necessary
condition for happiness, he did not see it as a sufficient condition; rather, happiness was
something one had to acquire, indeed, conquer, as the title suggests.
Causes of Unhappiness
The first part of the book deals with the principal sources of unhappiness. Russell begins by
describing "Byronic unhappiness," or the tendency of intellectuals and world-weary people to
equate wisdom with despair rooted in cynicism. The dyspeptic perspective of certain existentialist
philosophers might be representative of such an outlook. He then writes about the dangers of
excessive competitiveness, focusing primarily on commercial affairs, for which, like many
academics, Russell betrays a subtle disdain. However, he readily admits that excessive
competitiveness exists also in artistic and scholarly pursuits, as well as in other human endeavors.
Next, he takes on boredom, which he believes is a particularly human problem, and largely a
product of monotony, though he says modern humans have much less about which to be bored
than our ancestors. At the same time, he eschews "excitement" over the fleeting pleasures that
leave one feeling empty, using the kind of satisfaction derived from gambling as an example.
Russell then goes on to discuss the problems of fatigue, often induced by having too much to
do, the bane of people who work too hard or have too many interests; envy, an especially
pernicious source of unhappiness caused by coveting what we don't have or can't possibly have,
and, often enough, don't really need; "persecution mania," the idea that one is the constant object
of the plots and malefactions of others; and the oppressive fear of public opinion, which stultifies
the personal freedom necessary for creative growth.
Of particular interest among Russell's sources of unhappiness is our "sense of sin." Russell
thought religion was a major cause of human misery in the world, not least of all due to the feelings
of guilt it engenders. The propensity to focus on one's lack of virtue is merely a form of self-
absorption, one which can be so overwhelming as to make us not only unhappy but irrational and
even irresponsible. Russell would be horror-struck by the religious apologists populating today's
airwaves, those who believe godless liberalism and an insufficient sense of human wretchedness
are the chief causes of psychological disorders and society's downfall.
Many of the ideas about what constituted sinfulness were absurd to Russell, especially in
matters dealing with sexuality. He certainly understood that one can violate a rational code of
conduct; however, constantly dwelling on our failures is counterproductive. According to Russell,
one should "regard his own undesirable acts, as he regards those of others, as acts produced by
certain circumstances, and to be avoided by a fuller realization that they are undesirable, or, where
this is possible, by avoidance of the circumstances that caused them".
Causes of Happiness
Russell devoted fewer pages to the matter of acquiring happiness, probably because the
formula for it seemed more obvious to him. He realized perfect happiness is not simply what
philosophers from Plato to Mill imagined it to be, namely, the rarified pleasures of contemplating
philosophy. It is clear from his discussions about the joy derived from more mundane things that
he did not entirely buy Mill's famous dictum, "Better Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied."
While not denying the pleasures of the intellect, he did not give them undue weight. However, he
did believe scientists might enjoy some advantages over others, for the scientist is able to "utilize
his abilities to the full, and he achieves results which appear important not only to himself but to
the general public, even when it cannot in the smallest degree understand them. In this, he is more
fortunate than the artist".
According to Russell, the common denominator among all happy people is "zest," by which
he roughly meant a kind of joyous interest in the multifarious aspects of our lives, not with
excessive zeal, but with moderation in an Aristotelian sense. People with such a balanced but
engaged temperament are likely to be happier than their counterparts, who could range from one
who would starve oneself at one end of the spectrum to a gourmand at the other end.
Russell then described the importance of both giving and receiving affection; having
meaningful and productive work to do, but not to excess; having one or more avocational interests
to challenge the mind, perhaps even benefiting others in the process, while preventing monotony
and boredom; and placing satisfying effort into the things that one can meaningfully improve, at
the same time understanding when one ought to be resigned to insurmountable realities. While
external factors can impede happiness, and in some cases make it unattainable, Russell also
believed that, when circumstances allow, it is important not to wait passively for it, as it does not
"drop into the mouth, like a ripe fruit, by the mere operation of fortunate circumstances".
On a final note, Russell also wrote about the importance of having close family relationships.
His own family ties were strained for most of his life, except when his three children were quite
young, and later during his marriage to Edith Finch—his last—which by all accounts was a happy
one. His daughter, Katherine Tait, wrote in My Father Bertrand Russell (1975), "He was the most
fascinating man I have ever known, the only man I ever loved, the greatest man I shall ever meet,
the wittiest, the gayest, the most charming. It was a privilege to know him, and I thank God he
was my father." This would have made Russell very happy, despite the object of her gratitude.
Give a detailed account of Bertrand Russell and his position as a
pacifist and a socialist
Introduction
Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872-1970) was a British philosopher,
mathematician, and Nobel laureate, whose emphasis on logical analysis influenced the
course of 20th-century philosophy.
Born in Trelleck, Wales, on May 18, 1872, Russell was educated
at Trinity College,University of Cambridge. After graduation in 1894, he traveled
in France, Germany, and the United States and was then made a fellow
of Trinity College. From an early age he developed a strong sense of social
consciousness; at the same time, he involved himself in the study of logical and
mathematical questions, which he had made his special fields and on which he was
called to lecture at many institutions throughout the world. He achieved prominence
with his first major work, The Principles of Mathematics (1902), in which he attempted
to remove mathematics from the realm of abstract philosophical notions and to give it a
precise scientific framework.
Russell then collaborated for eight years with the British philosopher and
mathematician Alfred North Whitehead to produce the monumental work Principia
Mathematica (3 volumes, 1910-1913). This work showed that mathematics can be stated
in terms of the concepts of general logic, such as class and membership in a class. It
became a masterpiece of rational thought. Russell and Whitehead proved that numbers
can be defined as classes of a certain type, and in the process they developed logic
concepts and a logic notation that established symbolic logic as an important
specialization within the field of philosophy. In his next major work, The Problems of
Philosophy (1912), Russell borrowed from the fields of sociology, psychology, physics,
and mathematics to refute the tenets of idealism, the dominant philosophical school of
the period, which held that all objects and experiences are the product of the intellect.
Russell, a realist, believed that objects perceived by the senses have an inherent reality
independent of the mind.
Pacifist and Socialist
Russell condemned both sides in World War I (1914-1918), and for his
uncompromising stand he was fined, imprisoned, and deprived of his teaching post
at Cambridge. In prison he wroteIntroduction to Mathematical Philosophy(1919),
combining the two areas of knowledge he regarded as inseparable. After the war he visited
the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, and in his bookPractice and Theory of
Bolshevism (1920) he expressed his disappointment with the form of socialism practiced
there. He felt that the methods used to achieve a Communist system were intolerable and
that the results obtained were not worth the price paid.
Russell taught at Beijing University inChina during 1921 and 1922. From 1928 to
1932, after he returned to England, he conducted the private, highly progressiveBeacon
Hill School for young children. From 1938 to 1944 he taught at various educational
institutions in the United States. He was barred, however, from teaching at the College of
the City of New York (now City College of the City University of New York) by the state
supreme court because of his attacks on religion in such works as What I Believe (1925)
and his advocacy of sexual freedom, expressed in Manners and Morals(1929).
Russell returned to England in 1944 and was reinstated as a fellow of Trinity College.
Although he abandoned pacifism to support the Allied cause in World War II (1939-1945),
he became an ardent and active opponent of nuclear weapons. In 1949 he was awarded
the Order of Merit by King George VI. Russell received the 1950 Nobel Prize for Literature
and was cited as “the champion of humanity and freedom of thought.” He led a movement
in the late 1950s advocating unilateral nuclear disarmament by Britain, and at the age of
89 he was imprisoned after an antinuclear demonstration. He died onFebruary 2, 1970.
Philosopher and Author
In addition to his earlier work, Russell also made a major contribution to the
development of logical positivism, a strong philosophical movement of the 1930s and
1940s. The major Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, at one time Russell's
student at Cambridge, was strongly influenced by his original concept of logical atomism.
In his search for the nature and limits of knowledge, Russell was a leader in the revival of
the philosophy of empiricism in the larger field of epistemology. In Our Knowledge of the
External World (1926) andInquiry into Meaning and Truth (1962), he attempted to
explain all factual knowledge as constructed out of immediate experiences. Among his
other books are The ABC of Relativity (1925), Education and the Social Order (1932), A
History of Western Philosophy (1945), The Impact of Science upon Society (1952), My
Philosophical Development (1959), War Crimes in Vietnam(1967), and The
Autobiography of Bertrand Russell (3 volumes, 1967-1969).

Discuss Bertrand Russell’s position as a Philosopher

The fundamental element in Russell’s philosophy is his logic. His views on
metaphysics and ethics, on the nature and relations of matter and mind, changed
profoundly in the course of his life, but these changes all proceeded from successively
deeper applications of his logical method. He, therefore, preferred to classify his
philosophy not as a species of idealism or realism but as “logical atomism”, since what
distinguishes the whole of his work is his use of logical analysis as a method and his belief
that by it we can arrive at ultimate “atomic facts” logically independent both of one
another and of being known.

First Russell tried to free logical analysis from the domination of ordinary grammar
by showing that the grammatical form of a sentence often fails to reflect the logical form
of its meaning. In his Principles of Mathematics he insisted that relations could not be
reduced to qualities of their terms and that relational facts were not of the subject-
predicate forms, but he still thought that any descriptive phrase which could be made the
subject of a sentence must stand for a term which had being, even if like “the round
square” it were self-contradictory. In his article “On Denoting” and in subsequent
writings, he put forward his theory of descriptions, which is perhaps the most important
and influential of his innovations in logic. According to this theory, “the present king
of France” is not a name for a nonexistent entity but an “incomplete symbol” which only
has meaning in connection with a context. The meaning of such a statement as “the
present king of France is bald” is first that there is someone who is at present both king
of France and bald, and secondly that there are not at present two kings of France; and
when such statements are analyzed in this way the need to believe in entities such as “the
present king of France” (which are said by some philosophers to have “being” but not
“existence”) is altogether removed. Similarly when it is said that “unicorns are not real”,
this does not mean that certain animals, namely unicorns, lack the characteristics of
reality but that there are no horse-like animals with one horn.
Russell applied similar methods to classes and to numbers, and argued that each of
these categories consists of what he called “logical constructions”. In saying, for example,
that classes are logical constructions, he did not mean that they are entities constructed
by the human mind, but that when we express facts by sentences which have for subject
such a phrase as “the class of men”, the true analysis of the fact does not correspond to
the grammatical analysis of the sentence. When, for instance, we say “the class of men
includes the class of criminals”, the fact asserted by us is really about the characteristics
of being a man and a criminal and not about any such entities as classes at all. This notion
of a logical construction was much employed by Russell in his work in mathematical logic,
and he also used it extensively in the philosophy of matter and mind, and even adopted
as a fundamental principle that constructions (in his special sense of the word) are to be
substituted for inferred entities wherever possible.
By applying this method Russell was led to a view of the world in which the ultimate
constituents of mind and matter are of the same type, the difference between minds and
bodies lying in their structure and not in the elements of which they are composed. A
man’s mind is composed of sensations and images, which are identified by Russell with
physical events in his brain, and the difference between physics and psychology lies not
in the events which they study but in the kind of laws about these events which they seek
to establish, physics being concerned with structure, and psychology with quality. This
theory was worked out by Russell in connection with physics in The Analysis of Matter.
In the theory of knowledge, Russell’s earlier rationalism was considerably modified
in a pragmatist or behaviourist direction, and in The Analysis of Mind he rejected
consciousness as a fundamental characteristic of mind and adopted a form of “neutral
monism” about perception, which he combined with representationism in regard to
memory and judgment.
Russell’s logical atomism was the starting-point for the Tractatus Logico-
Philosophicus (1921) of his pupil L. Wittgenstein and so one of the sources of logical
positivism. Then, after a period between World Wars I and II when it dominated the
philosophy of the English-speaking world, his programme was brought into doubt by the
later teaching of Wittgenstein, according to which philosophical difficulties arise not from
any inadequacy of ordinary language but from failure to respect the limits of normal
usage. In his own later writings, Russell showed some misgivings about logical atomism,
but for different reasons. He came to think, for example, that there might be necessary
connections between distinct events.
Russell maintained that mathematics and formal logic are one and that the whole of
pure mathematics can be rigorously deduced from a small number of logical axioms. He
argued this in outline inPrinciples of Mathematics and then tried to give a detailed
demonstration of his thesis inPrincipia Mathematica, written with A.N. Whitehead. In
this colossal work the deduction is carried so far as to include all the essential parts of the
theory of aggregates and real numbers. Besides this, the great advances made by Russell
in the analysis of logical concepts allowed the deductions to be carried not only much
farther forward but also much farther backward toward first principles. Above all, he
appeared to solve the notorious paradoxes of the theory of aggregates by means of the
theory of types. In this connection, however, he found it necessary to introduce an “axiom
of reducibility” which has never won general acceptance, so that his work cannot be
regarded as a final solution of the problem.

What are Bertrand Russell’s Views on religion and morality? Give your
answer with reference to the writings of Bertrand Russell.
An Agnostic
Russell called himself an agnostic. In other words he neither believed nor disbelieved
in the existence of God. Such an attitude was natural in a man who had a scientific outlook
on life and who called himself a Rationalist. In one of his essays called “Why I am not a
Christian”, he examined the main arguments which are thought to prove the existence of
God, and showed them all to be false.
Likewise Russell did not believe in any of the dogmas of traditional religion and was
firmly opposed to every kind of religious orthodoxy. Thus he was a “free thinker” in
religion. In one of the essays, “Free Thought and Official Propaganda”, he writes: “I am
myself a dissenter from all known religions, and I hope that every kind of religious belief
will die out. I do not believe that, on the balance, religious belief has been a force for
good.” Russell admits that, in certain times and places, religion has had some good
effects but says that on the whole religion has been a force for evil. He points out the
evils of holding rigid and dogmatic opinions in the sphere of religion as well as that of
politics. A doctrinaire approach to religion, he says, is always accompanied with
intolerance and persecution. “If only men could be brought into a tentatively agnostic
frame of mind about these matters, nine-tenths of the evils of the modern world would
be cured.” In the sphere of religion, as in all other spheres, Russell preaches not the “will
to believe” but the “will to doubt” or “the wish to find out”.
Opposed to Christian Doctrines, Dogmas, Rituals, Etc.
Russell did not recognize the divinity of Jesus Christ. He did not even agree that
Christ, as depicted in the Scripture, was a supremely good man. Christ’s Sermon on the
Mount is undoubtedly a noble utterance, but Christ was guilty of a vindictive attitude
towards his opponents. It is noteworthy too that it is the more intolerant aspects of
Christ’s teaching that have had by far the greater influence on the practices of the
organized Christian churches. Christianity, says Russell, has been distinguished from
other religions by its greater readiness for persecution. Christians have always persecuted
those who held different views; they have always persecuted free-thinkers; they have even
persecuted one another; they have killed thousands of innocent women on the ground
that they were witches. Russell did not approve of the opposition of the Roman Catholic
Church to birth control which he felt to be necessary under certain circumstances. He
could not see any sense in the ritual of the Roman Catholic Church either. It was a
superstition to believe, said Russell, that a priest could turn a piece of bread into the body
and blood of Christ by talking Latin to it. The Christian taboos were also odious to him.
Nor did he see any logic in the refusal of Christians to admit God’s responsibility for the
suffering and misery in this world, if at all there was a God. If the world was created by an
omnipotent and omniscient God, how could that God escape responsibility for all the
suffering in the world? If suffering be necessary as a means of purification from sin, why
should innocent children suffer under God’s dispensation? In short, Russell found the
dogmas, doctrines, rituals, observances, and beliefs of Christianity to be wholly
unacceptable.
Sceptical of Mystical Experiences and of An After-life
Nor did Russell have any faith in mystical or spiritual experiences of any kind. When
a man does not believe in God, he will not believe in any direct or indirect communion
with God who in his opinion is a mere figment of the imagination. It is impossible to verify
the truth of the experiences which mystics claim to have had. For the same reasons Russell
did not believe in immortality or an after-life. His concern for human welfare was
confined to improving the lot of mankind in this life because the next life was only a
hypothesis.
Opposed to Puritanism
In the sphere of morals, Russell was strongly opposed to Puritanism and to
conventional ideas of goodness and badness. The practical objection to Puritanism, he
says, is the same as to every form of fanaticism. The fanatic fails to recognise that the
suppression of a real evil, if carried out through extreme steps, produces even greater
evils. Breadth of sympathy, he says, has never been a strong point with the Puritans. The
Puritan condemns all pleasure: not only does he deny pleasure to himself but he denies it
to others too. The Puritan imagines that his moral standard is themoral standard, and he
does not realize that other ages and other countries, and even other groups in his own
country, have moral standards different from his, to which they have as good a right as he
has to his. Thus Russell deplores the Puritan’s narrow outlook and closed mind. He
disapproves of the doctrine of original sin. According to this traditional doctrine of
orthodox Christianity human beings are all born wicked, so wicked as to deserve eternal
punishment. This doctrine inevitably leads to Puritanism and to hypocrisy. Moralists are
persons who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering
with the pleasures of others: “There is an element of the busybody in our conception of
virtue: unless a man makes himself a nuisance to a great many people, we do not think he
can be an exceptionally good man. This attitude comes from our notion of sin. It leads not
only to interference with freedom, but also to hypocrisy.”
Opposed to Conventional Ideas of Goodness and Badness
In the essay, “The Harm That Good Men Do”, Russell’s opposition to conventional
ideas of goodness and badness is clearly stated, though the mode of expression here is
ironical. All good poets were thought to be immoral at the times when they were writing
really good poetry, he tells us, citing the cases of Dante, Shakespeare, Wordsworth,
Coleridge, Donne, Milton, and Swinburne. Scientists and philosophers were persecuted
for holding views opposed to the prevailing orthodoxies. Judged by conventional
standards all the Renaissance artists were bad men. Russell condemns the moralist’s
attitude towards venereal disease. Instead of asking people to take the necessary
precautions against venereal infection, the moralist would like people to suffer the painful
consequences of sexual indulgence outside the marital relationship. A rational and
scientific attitude would be prevention and, failing that, treatment and cure, but the
traditional moralist takes pleasure in the suffering of the patients who, according to him,
deserve their suffering as a punishment for their sinfulness. “We need a morality based
upon love of life, not upon repression and prohibition”, says Russell. A man should be
regarded as good if he is happy, generous, and glad when others are happy; if so, a few
lapses such as drinking or a sexual aberration should be condoned. It is necessary to instill
a rational attitude towards ethical questions, instead of the mixture of superstition and
oppression now prevailing. Thus the whole conception of “virtue” needs to be changed.
Russell does not accept the theological view that morality should be based on divine
authority, for the simple reason that he questions the very existence of the Deity.
“Sin is Geographical”
Russell’s rationalism means, among other things, plenty of freedom for the individual
in the sphere of social conduct, marriage, morals, etc. In “The Value of Scepticism” he
informs us that every kind of marriage-custom has existed in the history of mankind,
many of them such as would seem to be repugnant to human nature. We think we can
understand polygamy as a custom forced upon women by male oppressors. But in Tibet a
woman voluntarily marries several husbands, and family life there is at least as
harmonious as in Europe. There is no strong evidence to show that one marriage-custom
is better or worse than another. Almost all marriage-customs involve cruelty and
intolerance towards those who violate the local code, but otherwise they have nothing in
common. It would seem that sin is geographical: that is, the notion of sin varies from
country to country according to the particular code of morality prevalent there. In the
essay, “Freedom in Society”, Russell goes to the length of saying: “If a man chooses to
have two wives or a woman two husbands, it is his affair and theirs, and no one else ought
to feel called upon to take action about it”.
What is a “Right” Action?
In matters of general conduct Russell’s view is that, a man should perform actions
that will probably have the best consequences, in the light of whatever information he
possesses, or can be reasonably expected to have. Russell speaks of an action which
satisfies this condition as the wisest possible action, and he equates it with what it is right
for a man to do. Russell is also inclined to the view that a man ought to do what his
conscience tells him to. A moral action is one that a person would judge to be right after
due consideration (“after an appropriate amount of candid thought”). However, Russell
also often speaks of the vagaries of conscience.
Reason and the Passions
In one of his books, Russell wrote that in the ethical sphere he agreed with Hume’s
dictum that “Reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions”. This is obviously
anirrational attitude: it subordinates “reason” to the passions, while everywhere else in
his writings Russell gives to “reason” the supreme position. Perhaps all that Russell means
by his endorsement of Hume’s dictum is that the ends of our actions are determined by
our desires and that it is the role of reason only to ensure a choice of the proper means.
Even so it is somewhat difficult to reconcile Russell’s defecation of “reason” with his
approval of Hume’s dictum.

What are Bertrand Russell’s Views on Politics? Give your answer with
reference to the writings of Bertrand Russell.
The Individual Powerless Even Under a Democratic System
In Russell’s view what chiefly determines the behaviour of men in their social relations is the
desire for power. Historically all political institutions have had their basis in authority. The oldest
institutions were mostly monarchical. The natural successor to absolute monarchy was oligarchy.
Oligarchy takes various forms.
It may be the rule of a hereditary aristocracy, of the rich, of a church, or of a political party. In
any large-scale society, only a limited number of persons can effectively exercise power, and for
this reason the difference between an oligarchic and a democratic form of government can in
any case be only a difference of degree. As Russell says, “a government is usually called
democratic if a fairly large percentage of the population has a share of political power”. But it is
evident that both the percentage of the people and the extent of the share of political power will
vary considerably. Thus, in ancient Athens, the ordinary citizen could take a direct part in the
government of the city; if the lot fell on him, he could even hold office; but women were
excluded from the franchise, and a high proportion of the male population consisted of foreign
residents and slaves who had no part at all in the government. In present-day England, almost
every adult has the right of franchise, to follow a political party, and to stand for an election; but
the extent of effective power that this gives him may be very small. Even when an English citizen
gets elected to Parliament and his own party is in power, he may have very little voice in
deciding what is done. The party’s programme, as Russell tells us, “is decided in a manner which
is nominally democratic, but is very much influenced by a small number of wire-pullers. It is left
to the leaders to decide, in their parliamentary or governmental duties, whether they shall
attempt to carry out the programme; if they decide not to do so, it is the duty of their followers
to support their breach of faith by their votes, while denying, in their speeches, that it has taken
place. It is the system that has given to leaders the power to thwart their rank-and-file
supporters and to advocate reforms without having to enact them.”
The Merit of the Democratic System of Government
There is much truth in this account by Russell of the way in which representative government
is conducted. It may, however, be pointed out that people generally soon realize that the reforms
have not been enacted and that a probable result of this is that the leaders will at the next election
be thrown out of office. The ordinary citizen may not have much positive say in the conduct of the
country’s affairs, but at least he can exercise enough negative control to ensure that his interests
are not entirely ignored. Democracy, as Russell says, “does not ensure good government, but it
prevents certain evils”. An incompetent or unjust government can, for instance, be prevented,
through democratic procedures, from holding power permanently.
The Problem of the Right of PersonalLiberty
The right of personal liberty is generally thought essential to a democratic form of
government. According to Russell, “the doctrine of personal liberty consists of two parts, on the
one hand that a man shall not be punished except by due process of law, and on the other hand
that there shall be a sphere in which a man’s actions are not to be subject to governmental control.
This sphere includes free speech, a free press, and religious freedom. It used to include freedom
of economic enterprise.” Russell admits that these freedoms are all subject to certain limits. Even
the freedom of expression, which is most precious, may have to be abridged when national
security is threatened. “It is not difficult”, he says, “for a government to concede freedom of
thought when it can rely upon loyalty in action; but when it cannot, the matter is more difficult”.
Russell was not quite able to solve the problem of how to reconcile personal freedom with a stable
and efficient government.
No Concentration of Economic Power
Russell favours freedom of economic enterprise only to the extent that he is opposed to
concentrations of economic power, whether it be in the hands of the State or in those of private
groups. He would set firm restraints on the possession and use of private property. He agrees that
a man should enjoy the fruits of his own labour, but he sees no justification for inherited wealth,
and is opposed also to the private ownership of big business and of landed property.
The Power of the State
Although Russell could be described as a “Socialist”, he would diminish rather than increase
the power of the State. In his opinion the modern States are too much concerned with efficiency
in war, and further that they are harmful because of their vastness and the sense of individual
helpless to which they give rise. “Modern States”, he says, “as opposed to the small city States of
ancient Greece or medieval Italy, leave little room for initiative, and fail to develop in most men
any sense of ability to control their political destinies. The few men who achieve power in such
States are men of abnormal ambition and thirst for dominion, combined with skill in cajolery and
subtlety in negotiation. All the rest are dwarfed by knowledge of their own impotence.”
Russell’s Socialism
Russell believes that we should look to the State to diminish economic injustice, but does not
think that this is likely to be achieved by the method of nationalizing industries. The form of
socialism for which Russell had the most sympathy was “Guild Socialism” which was a blend of
State Socialism and the theory of government through trade-unions. In his book, Roads to
Freedom, in which he outlines this system, Russell says that it is “the best hitherto proposed, and
the one most likely to secure liberty without the constant appeals to violence which are to be feared
under a purely anarchist regime”. He does not discuss in any detail how its principles would apply
to non-industrial workers, but does express some fear that the formation of guilds of artists and
writers might lead to the suppression of original work. To accommodate people of this sort, as
well as those who do not care to do any kind of work, Russell proposes that “a certain small
income, sufficient for necessaries, should be secured to all, whether they work or not, and that a
larger income should be given to those who are willing to engage in some work which the
community recognizes as useful”. Russell believed that the temptation of a better standard of
living, as well as the improved conditions of work under the system of Guild Socialism, would be
an incentive strong enough to reduce to a minimum the number of those who did not wish to work
or wished to do work that was not recognized as useful.
No Concentration of Power in the Central Government
In Principles of Social Reconstruction(published in 1916, two years before Roads to
Freedom), Russell sees devolution as the means of avoiding the concentration of too much power
in the central government, arguing that “the positive purposes of the State, over and above the
preservation of order, ought as far as possible, to be carried out, not by the State itself, but by
independent organizations which should be left completely free so long as they satisfied the State
that they were not falling below a necessary minimum”. It would only be the duty of the State to
make sure that adequate standards were maintained in respect of health, education, scientific
research. In his later writings too Russell continued to warn people against the danger of
entrusting too much power to the State.
Opposed to Nationalism
Russell was firmly opposed to nationalism which was to him a “stupid ideal” that was
bringing Europe to ruin. He once described nationalism as “undoubtedly the most dangerous vice
of our time—far more dangerous than drunkenness, or drugs, or commercial dishonesty, or any
of the other vices against which a conventional moral education is directed”. After the Second
World War, he increasingly noted the nationalistic temper of Soviet Russia and the U.S.A. as likely
to provoke a third World War, which the use of atomic weapons would render far more terrible.
He advocated the establishment of a world government having the monopoly of armed force. He
recognized the danger of this monopoly too, but he thought that this danger could be minimized
by granting to local units the maximum possible autonomy. And even if the danger persisted, he
thought it a lesser evil than the occurrence of global wars. He believed the prevention of war as
the main function of a world-State, more important than any considerations of abstract justice.
Thus, in Principles of Social Reconstruction he wrote: “A world-State or federation of States, if it
is to be successful, will have to decide questions, not by the legal maxims which would be applied
by the Hague Tribunal, but as far as possible in the same sense in which they would be decided by
war. The function of authority should be to render the appeal to force unnecessary, not to give
decisions contrary to those which would be reached by force.”
Unilateral Disarmament
In New Hopes for a Changing World(1951), Russell argued that the substitution of order for
anarchy in international relations would come about, if at all, through the superior power of some
one nation or group of nations. “And only after such a single government has been constituted
will it be possible for the evolution towards a democratic form of international government to
begin”, he wrote. Russell thought that such a process of evolution might take a century or so. He
felt that no evil was greater than world wars and that the establishment of a world government
was the only sure way to prevent them from recurring. He went so far as to suggest a policy of
unilateral disarmament in order that there should be no world war. He seems not to have realized
that the balance of power too is an effective guarantee of world peace, and that such a balance of
power is possible only if both the power-blocs remain fully armed.

What are the stylistic qualities of Russell’s writings? Discuss with

reference to the Conquest of Happiness.
The Appeal of Russell’s Prose Style
The appeal of Russell to the modern reader is due, in no small measure, to the charm of his
prose style. Russell writes in a style which is characterized by lucidity, clarity, elegance, and a
grace of expression. It is a plain, unembellished style which the layman easily understands, and
yet it is a style which abounds in all the literary graces.
Russell is one of the great prose-stylists of the twentieth century. Although a philosopher, he
does not write in a distorted or obscure manner as most philosophers do. His style is characterized
by intellectual brilliance, clarity and lucidity, a certain frivolity and gaiety, and a catholicity of
temper. As a matter of fact, the phrase “intellectual brilliance” is itself very wide in its scope, and
it includes most of the other qualities. After all clarity, wit, and catholicity of temper are different
manifestations of intellectual brilliance. Russell is incapable of being dull in his writing just as he
is incapable of being shallow. The Conquest of Happiness is Bertrand Russell’s recipe for good
living. First published in 1930, it pre-dates the current obsession with self-help by decades.
Leading the reader step by step through the causes of unhappiness and the personal choices,
compromises and sacrifices that (may) lead to the final, affirmative conclusion of "The Happy
Man", this is popular philosophy, or even self-help, as it should be written. His expositions of all
the ideas are illumined by clarity and a grace of expression. His writing exactly reflects his
crystalline, scintillating mind. One reason for the popularity of Conquest of Happiness is certainly
the simplicity and charm of Russell’s prose-style.
Clarity, Lucidity, Grace and Elegance
The most conspicuous characteristics of this style are clarity, lucidity, grace, and elegance.
Even when Russell is dealing with ideas which are philosophical and technical, he succeeds in
conveying them to the reader by the manner in which he expresses them. He takes great pains to
make ideas clear to the reader, and yet his style is not at all forced or laborious. It is a sign of his
intellectual brilliance that he writes effortlessly and spontaneously in a style that is singularly free
from all kinds of obscurity and ambiguity. Such an effect is achieved by him by means of his
method of logical reasoning and by his habit of offering homely examples to clarify ideas. Every
thesis, every proposition, every theory, every suggestion that he offers in the course of
hisConquest of Happiness is well-argued, well-reasoned, and supported with appropriate
examples, illustrations, and analogies, most of which are drawn from either well-known facts of
history or everyday life,
Ideas, Intelligible and Coherently Presented
A noteworthy feature of the style of Russell is a complete absence of digressions or any other
form of superfluity. Russell is never prolix or diffuse. Nor does he create an impression of
copiousness or over-abundance in the matter of expression. His statements are compact and well-
knit, even when somewhat long.
An Unadorned but Effective Style
Russell’s style is free from embellishments and ornamental effects. It is a plain, unadorned
style. It is rarely charged even with emotion, being mainly addressed to the intelligence or the
intellect as distinguished from the heart or the feelings. And yet it is not uninteresting, dull,
tedious or monotonous in its effect. As has been indicated above, it is an elegant style with a charm
of its own.
Suited to Exposition and Argument
Russell has a style of writing which is admirably suited to exposition and argument. While
reading through his writings, we do not get entangled or enmeshed in the intricacies of thought.
Examples and Illustrations
Russell’s intellectual brilliance is also seen in the abundance of examples and illustrations
which he provides in the course of his writings, as also in the wealth of allusions that we find in
them.
The Abundance of Condensed Statements and Generalisations
Russell’s intellectual brilliance shows itself also in his capacity for making condensed
statements and generalisations which in most cases produce a striking effect.
Irony, Wit, and Gaiety
Although Russell has always something serious to say in his essays, yet he is not too grave or
solemn a writer. His essays are interspersed with witty observations and comments. Irony and
sarcasm are often employed by him as weapons of attack. However, his wit is generally dry, though
occasionally also gay. (Wit is gay when an author really seems to enjoy his witty remark, but wit
is dry when the author makes a witty remark somewhat scornfully or with a sense of great
superiority.)
Catholicity of Temper
Russell is a liberal philosopher. He suffers from no prejudices and no pet aversions. He has
no crotchets or fads. A philosopher who is never tired of preaching a scientific temper of mind
could never be narrow-minded in any sense of the word. His mind was large enough to take in its
sweep all issues pertaining to human welfare. He has expressed his opinions in the Conquest of
Happiness on the causes of unhappiness and has also provided the ways through which we can
win the happiness. And he has dealt with these matters in a style which reflects his catholic temper
and his wide-ranging mind. He did not evolve a style according to any premeditated theory or
doctrine. His style came to him naturally. In his case, as in the cases of other great writers, it can
be said with confidence that the style is the man. His is a style which is rich in such devices as
parallelisms, antitheses, contrasts, similes, metaphors, quotations, allusions, anecdotes, simple
words and difficult words, short sentences and long ones. He attaches no undue importance to
any particular ingredient of style, his only concern being clarity of expression. We cannot use a
single formula for this style as we can, for instance, for Bacon’s style (concise and epigrammatic),
for Carlyle’s style (erudite, cumbersome, and eccentric), or for Ruskin’s style (mellifluous, musical
prose). This is a style in which a perfect synthesis has been achieved between its various
ingredients. In its own way, it is a unique style, even as the man himself was unique.

What are the causes of unhappiness, described by Russell, and what

are his suggestions to overcome them?
According to Russell, our unhappiness is based on certain factors. To start with tension and
tumult are the main causes of unhappiness. The present age of human history is the age of turmoil.
Life has become complex and men and women are from head to foot busy in their daily work.
Even, they cannot spare weekend for some relax and recreation. Men and women are so absorbed
in their days and night that they have become stranger to their children and other relations. A
constant pursuit of fortune and luxuries of life, in this modern world has incurred worries,
tensions and restlessness for the people. Psychological anxiety and mental agonies are the “gifts”
of this hectic life.

Russell maintains that man has limited sources and he must realize his limitations. He cannot
acquire authentic knowledge, nor he can know the secrets of life. If man acknowledges the above-
mentioned weakness and tries to overcome them, he can be able the embrace the happiness, from
which he is aloof yet.
Apart from this general outlook, Russell further investigates the causes of unhappiness. For
this purpose he douses deep into Freudian psychology. The growing self-absorption is first
psychological cause of unhappiness. It develops unnecessary adherence to self, which takes the
shape of narcissism, megalomania and self-importance. This self-worship makes the ground for
sins.
 Narcissism implies too much absorption in self-love and to deliberately ignore reality.
Megalomania is the fallacy of self-importance. When these passions arise in a person, he tends to
be an arbiter or dictator.
Sense of sin means to be conscious of one’s guilt, and to deliberately break the moral taboos.
There are other causes of unhappiness, such as frustration in the childhood, the effects of which
appear in maturity, and, under the influence of this frustration, the sufferer isolates himself from
society.
The above-mentioned causes are psychological counts on which life becomes a painful
experience, if they are not tackled sensibly.
Russell also discusses some factors from our daily life, which become the cause of
unhappiness, if not sensed and controlled properly. They are referred as Byronic attitude,
competition, fatigue, envy, persecution mania and fear of public opinion.
Russell believes that there are people who take the concept happiness for myth. Man cannot
get at real happiness despite having got plenty of fortune and honor. He refers to the American
author Joseph Wood Krutch who in his book “Modern Temper” criticizes those who believe in
unhappiness. He writes that ‘Ours is the lost cause and we have no place in the natural universe.’
He writes further that man has seen the world enough and there is nothing new to be seen. But
Russell rejects his thoughts because according to him (Russell) life is full of novelties and
curiosities. The assorted scientific inventions, the astonishing modern devices have left everyone
with curiosity. Russell sees the Kruth’s pessimism in the perspective of some unfortunate
happenings in his childhood, which appeared later on, in the form of his disgust towards life.
Again Russell holds that competition is another reason of unhappiness. Competition is a
natural human instinct, which teaches us to excel over others. This sense of competition develops
into prejudice and enmity, which is harmful to humanity. Russell is of the view that this sense of
competition must be replaced by sense of co-operation. Competition is often unhealthy and leads
to antagonism. This competition, if inevitable, must go in a constructive way.
In this connection Russell further says competition is a bane and it may spoil one’s personal
and family life. It can segregate us from our children and spouse. According to Russell, the real
cause of this hectic competition is lust for the money. The crazy pursuit of money ensued from
competition often leaves the man with mental upset. To attain a mental tranquility, he uses drugs
and drink. So the writer condemns it severely and advises to be away from this harmful
competition.
Now he takes into consideration two other points, boredom and excitement as the causes of
unhappiness. These two are not major aspects but they must not be overlooked. Boredom is
unpleasant and sometimes intolerable, but it has some healthy features too. We feel bored when
we are at leisure. According to Russell boredom is natural phenomenon. It is makes alive our
excitement for works. The more we feel bored, the more we become excited for work. It is
interesting to note that the machine age has considerably decreased our boredom. It has made life
busy and interesting. But, an equivalent balance is also necessary between boredom and
excitement.
Fatigue is a characteristic of human body. It is natural phenomenon because our body gets
tired after over work and demands rest. The bodily fatigue ensues from hard work but what
Russell refers to is fatigue we get from competition and fear of loss. In order to get rid of nerve
fatigue, we must have mental discipline and tranquility. Those who are obsessed with worries
even on their bed cannot achieve any fruit from life. The mental fatigue, due to over work, exhausts
the energies and debilitates a person mentally and physically. The effect of worries goes deep into
man’s unconscious, but, according to Russell, we can avoid it if we analyze the nature of worries
and try to sort out them. If we take our misfortune as a part of our life and compare it with the
vast scheme of the universe, then we can change our viewpoint about life.
Another important cause of unhappiness is envy. Without any discrimination of gender or
age, it equally exists in men, women, children and adults. According to Russell, envy is the basic
human emotion, which sours life. Envy turns the life bitter and full of disillusionments if not
controlled properly. Women are generally suffering more in envy than men. Envy makes the
person rigid and proof against advice. It is hard to convince an envious person to change his mind.
The roots of envy are very deep in our social life to produce instability in it. Russell condemns it
severely regarding envy as the enemy of harmony and peace in society. It generates hatred and
grudge in society parting man from man. Envy is very ugly aspect of human nature because
envious people always burn in the fire of grudge and bitterness. They not only make their life hell
but also make efforts to poison other’s life. But on the other hand, the poison of envy can become
toast of life if used positively. Envy can produce a passion to succeed and advance in the race of
life but without any antipathy or hatred towards others. Envy is a passion, constructive as well as
destructive but it depends upon how it is taken.
Some people are always suffering from a certain kind of inferiority complex. They always feel
that society is opposed to them and every individual of society is poised to harm them. This is
actually a psychological set back of their mind, which becomes incurable if not tackled proper and
on time. The sufferer of this mania always feels obsessed with thought of some injury, which does
not exist at all. Russell says that such a person sometimes is really inflicted by that injury and his
obsession is materialized. This psychological ill may be controlled in he beginning, but, if it goes
beyond certain limits, it becomes a psychiatric problem. Persecution mania, according to Russell,
lies ingrained in human nature. It is required to recognize and define its limits to eliminate it. We
should convince ourselves that we have no extra-ordinary qualities, which distinguish us from
others. We should discard the imagination that people are after us and wish to persecute us.
The last of all, another cause of public unhappiness is the fear of public opinion. This kind of
fear is engendered by unfamiliar environment and lack of confidence in personal opinion. Russell
suggests that the youngsters, who find their environment not in synch with their disposition,
should join a certain profession to interact different set of people. It will bring them a better
companionship and friends. Or, they should join an interesting hobby to have some diversion and
change of environment.
In this connection Russell further emphasizes that the young should not suppress their own
opinions in the fear of being scoffed by the elders. He maintains that the freedom of public opinion
is necessary but it should be given within limits. There must not be any check or repression on
opinions. Any kind of repression on opinion kills the talent and mars the fertility of the young.
To sum up: Russell indicates many social and biological factors, which are the cause of
unhappiness. The above-described causes have their useful aspects too, if we control them and
wrench out betterments from them. It depends upon our effort to get better results. Nonetheless,
we are to be agreed with all the causes of unhappiness described by Russell in his book “The
Conquest of Happiness.”
He has dived deep into human nature to study and analyze all its aspects, which are chiefly
responsible for man unhappiness. His approach to overpower these causes and make the dream
of human happiness come true is based on his keen observation of humanity and human life, and
deep study of human psychology and rational attitude.
How does Russell make happiness possible in the present age of
tension? Suggest the factors, which can enable modern men to achieve
happiness.
According to Russell, the present age is full of tension, complexities and commotion, which
have made the men worried. The present age is the age of competition. Competition to gain more
and more money and luxuries of life has made the men extremely busy and they have no, or a little
time for the other affairs of life. This is also the major cause of disintegration of the family system.
Modern age has made ostentation a necessary evil. Man is suffering from ills like vanity, status-
consciousness, pomp and show, pursuit of some luxuries and to flaunt them. The competition of
vanity and ostentation has engendered a constant tension which is a major cause of unhappiness.

Apart from these social factors, there are some psychological causes, which have deprived the
modern men of their contentment. These factors, for the most part, are concerned with individual
psychology. Among these factors is the sense of self-importance, self-worship, narcissism, a
misconception of other people’s attitude, and envy. These factors have made life flat, dry and
barren. Though the above-mentioned factors are deeply ingrained in men’s nature and their
obnoxious results are evident in the present day hectic and worried life, yet Russell is not
pessimistic about life. There are rays of hope and optimism and Russell is of the view that life can
be made full of joys and pleasure if we are able to sort out such problems.
Russell thinks that there are certain psychological aspects of life, which can bring happiness
if they are put into constructive and positive use. Actually these psychological aspects find their
origin in biological factors. These are inseparable from our life and always force us to seek
happiness.
Zest is the basic characteristic of human nature, which keeps the man tuned to life and
maintains his interest and diligence in life. If man loses his zest, the life becomes dull and flat for
him. But one can keep one’s zest alive if he involves himself in the world and does not dissociate
himself from it. For this purpose one has to broaden his vision, boost his morale and enlarge his
courage. The people, who have zest for life, do not shut their eyes from even horrible things. They
even find out the enjoyable aspects of calamities like earthquakes, floods, shipwrecks and
conflagration. But, according to Russell, people have lost their zest in life due to a check on liberty.
Some restrictions are must to keep life in control, but they should be proper and bearable. Apart
from some restrictions, a moderate society must provide the individuals to keep their zest alive,
otherwise, men and woman will become dispirited and indifferent to life.
Lack of affection is another cause, which has debilitated the people’s zest. Affection is a
natural human instinct, which seeks satisfaction. Lack of affection is a feeling, arising in man that
he is not loved. If this feeling persists for long, it leads to aversion to society.
Russell attributes the lack of affection to the deprivation of parental love or over confidence.
Parental love nourishes all the healthy feature of human instinct. If a child gains a little or no love
from parents it leaves a bad effect on his character. Similarly lack of confidence results in the same
way. A constant feeling of lack affection magnifies a person’s antipathy to society and he becomes
revengeful. His revengeful nature then makes him to exhibit his horrible detrimental
psychological reaction. This negative attitude can be controlled if we put our thinking on the path
of realism. The individual feeling of lack of affection gives way to pessimism and melancholy and
leaves one always thinking over the insoluble problems as life and death. So it is a negative attitude
that makes life miserable. It is to be understood that in general, love is always reciprocated with
love and hatred with hatred. If you want to be loved by others than you must fill you bosom with
love and dispense love to others.
The next important factor, largely considered as the source of true happiness is the ‘Family.’
Russell deplores the fact this institution (family) has badly been disorganized in the modern age.
The causes of this disorganization are numerous among which, ‘woman’ is most prominent. Here
Russell reaches to a dilemma, leaving his readers confused. If woman is financially independent,
it will make the family happy financially. But an employed woman may have to leave her job when
she gets married to enjoy a good domestic and married life. Now, a woman dependant on her
husband financially may soothe her marital life but financial problems will arise to sour it again.
Again the introduction of democratic system has brought a certain change in the relationship
of siblings with parents. In the modern democratic system, children are not bound to respect their
parents. The popularization of psycho-analytic literature has also loosened the ties of family
relations. The popularization of the concept of Oedpus Complex has brought repulsion towards
family life. It has badly effects both parents and children. Russell is of the view that this obnoxious
misperception must be erased from the minds and a healthy sex education should be imparted to
the children. He gives praise to Freud when he quotes him as saying that the affection of a mother
to her children is different from the sexual love. It is pity that this positive and scientific aspect of
Freud’s views could not gain much popularity in masses. To prove the authenticity of this point of
Freud’s psychology, Russell given an example: he writes that if your friend or beloved looses his
or her charm, your love diminishes for her or him. But in the case of parents it is otherwise.
Whatsoever the conditions may be, your parents love you selflessly for no want or advantage. The
love of parents is therefore always pure, devout, altruistic and natural. Russell sums up that sound
family relations make sound character and sound character of the individuals constitutes a sound
society.
If we go on working ceaselessly, fatigue overcomes us causing unhappiness. On the other if
leisure time continues, boredom and monotony ensues from it. So work is also another source of
happiness, if it does not exceed from certain limit. Most of the affluent people, who have nothing
to do, are faced with boredom. So they get themselves busy in hunting or exploring. It must be
clear that work does not connote professional work. Rather, it is an engagement in something
whether it is hobby or recreation. Russell believes that the exercise of one’s skill and using it for
some constructive purpose is the chief source of happiness. When a person acquires a skill, he
enjoys exercising it until it becomes for him a matter of course. However it depends upon the
character and tendency of the man how he uses it. Some people have constructive tendency and
others have the destructive. The man with a destructive tendency always uses his skill for negative
causes and becomes detrimental to society. Those who use their skill to cool the chaos and sort
out the surging problems render bone-fide service to society. Russell further stresses on the point
that life must be taken as a continuous struggle, a continuous process, which is purposeful.
Another source of happiness is taking interest in something beyond one’s profession work. It
generally regarded as a hobby. Such an impersonal interest makes a person to divert his attention
from his tedious monotonous work and be absorbed in some activity, which is not professional.
The zeal and zest which one attaches to his profession is something of different nature than the
interest which one takes in his hobby. Professional work involves a certain kind of burden and
devotion while a hobby has an interest and attraction, which alleviates the burden of mind and
keeps a person for sometime in a world, which is full of pleasure and amusement. In Russell’s
view impersonal interests are necessary for relief from tedium of personal work. Moreover,
impersonal interests open news ways to thoughts and bring a person out of the prison of his
routinely work. They exercise of something a new refreshes one’s mind and soothes it a lot. If one
keeps confined to our personal interest, he develops the habit of fanaticism and narrow
mindedness. It is essential to widen the circle of our activities and look for a new horizon to view
life differently. In this way impersonal interests make our life spirited and enjoyable.
Again it helps sort out our financial and family problems. If we adopt the same attitude and
spare some time for impersonal interests, it will better enable us to ponder over them and hit upon
some solution. It also enables us to face any misfortune as a course, and it is not so difficult if we
broaden our vision and our impersonal interests.
Effort and resignation are other major sources of happiness. Effort makes one struggle for
something and when it is got, the man gains happiness. The movement and activity of world owes
to effort. Resignation means to be patient and contented on what has been got. Effort when
exceeds from certain limits becomes a source of trouble. Similarly resignation, if taken in wrong
sense makes life dull and unattractive. Success is not a windfall, dropped in the lap of man. It calls
for effort and struggle. However effort is also related to the climatic conditions. An Indian beggar
will easily extend his bowl for alms to passer-bye, but in Europe where climate is fairly cold a
beggar will not resort to such a practice. However, there are limitations of efforts. According to
Russell, a wise man will not waste his energies and time on something, which is impossible. Nor
he ventures into something, which is extremely hard to shatter his body and mind. Effort is made
in the light of wisdom and beyond wisdom it becomes a mania.
Resignation, according to Russell, has two connotations. First it is despair, and second, it is
unconquerable hope. If one is defeated again and again in life and alienates from all the affairs
with utmost hopelessness, it is nothing but resignation. This kind of resignation is negative. Such
people cannot face the challenges of life and they are overcome with a death-like disappointment.
On the other hand someone’s firm belief in his success and determination also grant him
resignation. But it is his utmost pessimism, which makes him nonchalant and indifferent to others
and this is the positive resignation. A man with positive resignation will not loose heart even if he
is he faced with worst kind defeat, disease or accident. According to Russell, the secret of
happiness is enclosed in effort and resignation at the same time. But his effort and struggle must
be consistent with one’s ability and power. Effort beyond his power will be fruitless and he will
have to adopt resignation.
Unlike Mr. Krutch, Russell is of the view that happiness is not impossible in this world. He
rejects Mr. Krutch’s view that happiness is impossible in this world. He says that if a person has
got wealth, health, food and shelter, there is no question of his being unhappy. Despite having got
all these things, an unhappy person is surely a psychiatric case. Again if we accept the facts and
overcome the ills like, self-absorption, envy, competition and sense of sins, we can make our life
happy. Again he condemns the habit of self-absorption and narcissism, which make us confined
to our self. If a man wants to be happy he must come out the shell of his self and enter practically
in the world. He must involve himself in the interests and attractions of this world. He should not
live like a flower in the garden of life, rather, like fragrance he should move and spread in this
garden. The world is full of beauties, but it depends on the onlooker to explore these beauties. And
it is possible if he dives deep into this river and bring out the pearl of happiness with his own
effort. Being practical, he can easily overcome his nasty passions like sense of sin, self-pity, and
fear to become happy.
Russell particularly regards self-absorption as the enemy of human happiness. If it goes to
extreme, it will make us greatly selfish. But selfishness has also its good features. Selfishness, to
limited extent, keeps a person tuned to life. But if it crosses a certain limit it makes a person greedy
and self-centered.
To sum up: Through his interest in the outside world a man can become a true citizen, with
true happiness and pleasure of life.
Whether Berttrand Russell is realistic in giving the causes of happiness
and unhappiness or not? What is your opinion?
Bertrand Russell was the glorious prose-writer and philosopher of the 20th century who
wrote on almost all the problems human life. As a mathematician and scientist he also wrote on
technical subjects as mathematics, logic, physics and philosophy. He was multi-dimensional
personality with scientific, humanist and intellectual and many aspects. His profound knowledge
and broad vision is ample proof of his keen interest in human life, human problems and their
solution. He has a sympathetic heart and a scientific brain. His write-ups show that his heart was
replete with humanity.

In his book, The Conquest of Happiness, he throws light on the causes and sources of
happiness and unhappiness and very sensibly gives forth suggestions to tackle the problem of
unhappiness. He eyes are very keen and heart is very sensitive. He examines the human life with
his keen eyes and then analyses the human instinct and passions. Then he points out different
aspects, which make cause of happiness and unhappiness. His association with humanity and
contribution as a writer is indeed a great achievement. In the present hectic and tumultuous age,
his book “The Conquest of Happiness” is just like an elixir, which unveils the unnoticed reasons
of unhappiness, discloses the secrets of happiness and then guides to the solutions of
unhappiness.
Russell when analyzing the causes of unhappiness, first of all points out that the very first
cause of unhappiness is the man’s pursuit of money. Man’s craze for wealth has made him
indifferent to his relations, his family and deprived him of his peace of his mind. He is running to
accumulate more and more wealth to buy useful machines and to maintain his statue quo, but he
is unmindful of his real moral duties. He is working as a machine, and machine is always
unconscious of his surrounding. This tendency is gaining currency, which has made the life
miserable. The real happiness lies in resignation and content. The true happiness is love, so
dispense love to others and receive the same. Love others and be loved by the others.
According to Russell, life is great responsibility. It needs struggle, effort and an optimistic
outlook. He does not agree with Krutch’s view that ours is lost cause and we have no place in
universe. He is also disagreed with the view that there is nothing new in life. Rather we to explore
the realm of life and there is something novel at every step. The pre-requisite of this success is
effort. Russell is averse to disgust and hate the world, rather, he emphasizes on a realistic and
optimistic attitude, which is the key to happiness.
Having dilated upon such broader question, Russell considers upon some other biological
and psychological causes which make our life miserable. He has sensibly dilated upon these causes
and mentioned ways to tackle them.
Another point is competition, which is natural human urge. Man always tries to surpass his
fellows to gain some distinction. But sometimes this tendency attains negative shape and a
passion of enmity develops in human heart. So competition must always be healthy.
Unfortunately, the sign of prestige and intelligence in the modern age is money. When
competition to achieve money and prestige occurs, it ends the sense of love and cooperation and
prejudice is established among humans. It is moral duty of man not fall into a negative
competition, which is detrimental to humanity and a threat to love. Again he brings boredom and
excitement under discussion. He regards envy as the most important psychological cause of
human unhappiness. If envy is left unchecked, it will play havoc with humanity. Envy gradually
shapes into rancor, and envying person always plans to damage the other, and in this way makes
not only his own life disturbed and miserable, but also that of others. And the solution is the same
as of competition. Envy, if positive, helps improve the efficiency of men in many respects. But if
it is negative, it pervades to humanity as a poison.
After describing the sources of unhappiness and indicating the ways to check them, Russell
asks the question whether happiness is possible or not. Russell is convinced of reason and believes
in recognition of facts. He regards self-absorption as another cause of unhappiness. Russell
particularly holds self-absorption as the enemy of human happiness. If it goes to extreme, it will
make us greatly selfish. But selfishness has also its good features. Selfishness, to limited extent,
keeps a person tuned to life. But if it crosses a certain limit it makes a person greedy and self-
centered. An entirely introvert man is lost in his own self and becomes a miserable person, for
whom life has no charm.
Russell takes zest, affection, family, work, impersonal interests, efforts and resignation as
sources of happiness. All these topics have been discussed in detail in the previous question. So
reader may go to back pages for details.
To sum up: Russell is an intellectual and philosopher with broader outlook of life. He is
optimistic and hopeful about life. On the sky of his thoughts, the stars of hope are shining and
removing the darkness of pessimism. His words are actually rays of hope, which guide the lost
people and put them on the path of struggle and effort. He observes the world not as an arid and
horrible desert, but as a verdant and flowery garden, but it requires earnest effort, struggle and
devotion, to convert this desert to garden. He is not in the favor of discarding life as rubbish,
rather he advises to join the race of life and win it. He dictates man to be a part of this society and
abandon self-absorption. The fruits in the orchard of life are not too high and distant but one has
to extent his hand. Russell does not like those who are just the spectators of life, rather he likes
those who dive in this ocean and conquer it. Russel is not horrified by death, because death is not
separate from life. He finds himself among those who will come after him.

Bertrand Russell—The Philosopher

The fundamental element in Russell’s philosophy is his logic. His views on metaphysics
and ethics, on the nature and relations of matter and mind, changed profoundly in the course of
his life, but these changes all proceeded from successively deeper applications of his logical
method. He, therefore, preferred to classify his philosophy not as a species of idealism or realism
but as “logical atomism”, since what distinguishes the whole of his work is his use of logical
analysis as a method and his belief that by it we can arrive at ultimate “atomic facts” logically
independent both of one another and of being known.

First Russell tried to free logical analysis from the domination of ordinary grammar by
showing that the grammatical form of a sentence often fails to reflect the logical form of its
meaning. In his Principles of Mathematics he insisted that relations could not be reduced to
qualities of their terms and that relational facts were not of the subject-predicate forms, but he
still thought that any descriptive phrase which could be made the subject of a sentence must stand
for a term which had being, even if like “the round square” it were self-contradictory. In his article
“On Denoting” and in subsequent writings, he put forward his theory of descriptions, which is
perhaps the most important and influential of his innovations in logic. According to this theory,
“the present king of France” is not a name for a nonexistent entity but an “incomplete symbol”
which only has meaning in connection with a context. The meaning of such a statement as “the
present king of France is bald” is first that there is someone who is at present both king of France
and bald, and secondly that there are not at present two kings of France; and when such
statements are analyzed in this way the need to believe in entities such as “the present king of
France” (which are said by some philosophers to have “being” but not “existence”) is altogether
removed. Similarly when it is said that “unicorns are not real”, this does not mean that certain
animals, namely unicorns, lack the characteristics of reality but that there are no horse-like
animals with one horn.
Russell applied similar methods to classes and to numbers, and argued that each of these
categories consists of what he called “logical constructions”. In saying, for example, that classes
are logical constructions, he did not mean that they are entities constructed by the human mind,
but that when we express facts by sentences which have for subject such a phrase as “the class of
men”, the true analysis of the fact does not correspond to the grammatical analysis of the sentence.
When, for instance, we say “the class of men includes the class of criminals”, the fact asserted by
us is really about the characteristics of being a man and a criminal and not about any such entities
as classes at all. This notion of a logical construction was much employed by Russell in his work
in mathematical logic, and he also used it extensively in the philosophy of matter and mind, and
even adopted as a fundamental principle that constructions (in his special sense of the word) are
to be substituted for inferred entities wherever possible.
By applying this method Russell was led to a view of the world in which the ultimate
constituents of mind and matter are of the same type, the difference between minds and bodies
lying in their structure and not in the elements of which they are composed. A man’s mind is
composed of sensations and images, which are identified by Russell with physical events in his
brain, and the difference between physics and psychology lies not in the events which they study
but in the kind of laws about these events which they seek to establish, physics being concerned
with structure, and psychology with quality. This theory was worked out by Russell in connection
with physics in The Analysis of Matter.
In the theory of knowledge, Russell’s earlier rationalism was considerably modified in a
pragmatist or behaviourist direction, and in The Analysis of Mind herejected consciousness as a
fundamental characteristic of mind and adopted a form of “neutral monism” about perception,
which he combined with representationism in regard to memory and judgment.
Russell’s logical atomism was the starting-point for the Tractatus Logico-
Philosophicus (1921) of his pupil L. Wittgenstein and so one of the sources of logical positivism.
Then, after a period between World Wars I and II when it dominated the philosophy of the
English-speaking world, his programme was brought into doubt by the later teaching of
Wittgenstein, according to which philosophical difficulties arise not from any inadequacy of
ordinary language but from failure to respect the limits of normal usage. In his own later writings,
Russell showed some misgivings about logical atomism, but for different reasons. He came to
think, for example, that there might be necessary connections between distinct events.
Russell maintained that mathematics and formal logic are one and that the whole of pure
mathematics can be rigorously deduced from a small number of logical axioms. He argued this in
outline in Principles of Mathematics and then tried to give a detailed demonstration of his thesis
in Principia Mathematica, written with A.M. Whitehead. In this colossal work the deduction is
carried so far as to include all the essential parts of the theory of aggregates and real numbers.
Besides this, the great advances made by Russell in the analysis of logical concepts allowed the
deductions to be carried not only much farther forward but also much farther backward toward
first principles. Above all, he appeared to solve the notorious paradoxes of the theory of aggregates
by means of the theory of types. In this connection, however, he found it necessary to introduce
an “axiom of reducibility” which has never won general acceptance, so that his work cannot be
regarded as a final solution of the problem.

Bertrand Russell—His Political Views

The Individual Powerless Even Under a Democratic System
In Russell’s view what chiefly determines the behaviour of men in their social relations is
the desire for power. Historically all political institutions have had their basis in authority. The
oldest institutions were mostly monarchical. The natural successor to absolute monarchy was
oligarchy. Oligarchy takes various forms. It may be the rule of a hereditary aristocracy, of the rich,
of a church, or of a political party.
In any large-scale society, only a limited number of persons can effectively exercise power, and
for this reason the difference between an oligarchic and a democratic form of government can in
any case be only a difference of degree. As Russell says, “a government is usually called democratic
if a fairly large percentage of the population has a share of political power”. But it is evident that
both the percentage of the people and the extent of the share of political power will vary
considerably. Thus, in ancient Athens, the ordinary citizen could take a direct part in the
government of the city; if the lot fell on him, he could even hold office; but women were excluded
from the franchise, and a high proportion of the male population consisted of foreign residents
and slaves who had no part at all in the government. In present-day England, almost every adult
has the right of franchise, to follow a political party, and to stand for an election; but the extent of
effective power that this gives him may be very small. Even when an English citizen gets elected
to Parliament and his own party is in power, he may have very little voice in deciding what is done.
The party’s programme, as Russell tells us, “is decided in a manner which is nominally democratic,
but is very much influenced by a small number of wire-pullers. It is left to the leaders to decide,
in their parliamentary or governmental duties, whether they shall attempt to carry out the
programme; if they decide not to do so, it is the duty of their followers to support their breach of
faith by their votes, while denying, in their speeches, that it has taken place. It is the system that
has given to leaders the power to thwart their rank-and-file supporters and to advocate reforms
without having to enact them.”
The Merit of the Democratic System of Government
There is much truth in this account by Russell of the way in which representative
government is conducted. It may, however, be pointed out that people generally soon realize that
the reforms have not been enacted and that a probable result of this is that the leaders will at the
next election be thrown out of office. The ordinary citizen may not have much positive say in the
conduct of the country’s affairs, but at least he can exercise enough negative control to ensure that
his interests are not entirely ignored. Democracy, as Russell says, “does not ensure good
government, but it prevents certain evils”. An incompetent or unjust government can, for
instance, be prevented, through democratic procedures, from holding power permanently.
The Problem of the Right of PersonalLiberty
The right of personal liberty is generally thought essential to a democratic form of
government. According to Russell, “the doctrine of personal liberty consists of two parts, on the
one hand that a man shall not be punished except by due process of law, and on the other hand
that there shall be a sphere in which a man’s actions are not to be subject to governmental control.
This sphere includes free speech, a free press, and religious freedom. It used to include freedom
of economic enterprise.” Russell admits that these freedoms are all subject to certain limits. Even
the freedom of expression, which is most precious, may have to be abridged when national
security is threatened. “It is not difficult”, he says, “for a government to concede freedom of
thought when it can rely upon loyalty in action; but when it cannot, the matter is more difficult”.
Russell was not quite able to solve the problem of how to reconcile personal freedom with a stable
and efficient government.
No Concentration of Economic Power
Russell favours freedom of economic enterprise only to the extent that he is opposed to
concentrations of economic power, whether it be in the hands of the State or in those of private
groups. He would set firm restraints on the possession and use of private property. He agrees that
a man should enjoy the fruits of his own labour, but he sees no justification for inherited wealth,
and is opposed also to the private ownership of big business and of landed property.
The Power of the State
Although Russell could be described as a “Socialist”, he would diminish rather than
increase the power of the State. In his opinion the modern States are too much concerned with
efficiency in war, and further that they are harmful because of their vastness and the sense of
individual helpless to which they give rise. “Modern States”, he says, “as opposed to the small city
States of ancient Greece or medieval Italy, leave little room for initiative, and fail to develop in
most men any sense of ability to control their political destinies. The few men who achieve power
in such States are men of abnormal ambition and thirst for dominion, combined with skill in
cajolery and subtlety in negotiation. All the rest are dwarfed by knowledge of their own
impotence.”
Russell’s Socialism
Russell believes that we should look to the State to diminish economic injustice, but does
not think that this is likely to be achieved by the method of nationalizing industries. The form of
socialism for which Russell had the most sympathy was “Guild Socialism” which was a blend of
State Socialism and the theory of government through trade-unions. In his book, Roads to
Freedom, in which he outlines this system, Russell says that it is “the best hitherto proposed, and
the one most likely to secure liberty without the constant appeals to violence which are to be feared
under a purely anarchist regime”. He does not discuss in any detail how its principles would apply
to non-industrial workers, but does express some fear that the formation of guilds of artists and
writers might lead to the suppression of original work. To accommodate people of this sort, as
well as those who do not care to do any kind of work, Russell proposes that “a certain small
income, sufficient for necessaries, should be secured to all, whether they work or not, and that a
larger income should be given to those who are willing to engage in some work which the
community recognizes as useful”. Russell believed that the temptation of a better standard of
living, as well as the improved conditions of work under the system of Guild Socialism, would be
an incentive strong enough to reduce to a minimum the number of those who did not wish to work
or wished to do work that was not recognized as useful.
No Concentration of Power in the Central Government
In Principles of Social Reconstruction(published in 1916, two years before Roads to
Freedom), Russell sees devolution as the means of avoiding the concentration of too much power
in the central government, arguing that “the positive purposes of the State, over and above the
preservation of order, ought as far as possible, to be carried out, not by the State itself, but by
independent organizations which should be left completely free so long as they satisfied the State
that they were not falling below a necessary minimum”. It would only be the duty of the State to
make sure that adequate standards were maintained in respect of health, education, scientific
research. In his later writings too Russell continued to warn people against the danger of
entrusting too much power to the State.
Opposed to Nationalism
Russell was firmly opposed to nationalism which was to him a “stupid ideal” that was
bringing Europe to ruin. He once described nationalism as “undoubtedly the most dangerous vice
of our time—far more dangerous than drunkenness, or drugs, or commercial dishonesty, or any
of the other vices against which a conventional moral education is directed”. After the Second
World War, he increasingly noted the nationalistic temper of Soviet Russia and the U.S.A. as likely
to provoke a third World War, which the use of atomic weapons would render far more terrible.
He advocated the establishment of a world government having the monopoly of armed force. He
recognized the danger of this monopoly too, but he thought that this danger could be minimized
by granting to local units the maximum possible autonomy. And even if the danger persisted, he
thought it a lesser evil than the occurrence of global wars. He believed the prevention of war as
the main function of a world-State, more important than any considerations of abstract justice.
Thus, in Principles of Social Reconstruction he wrote: “A world-State or federation of States, if it
is to be successful, will have to decide questions, not by the legal maxims which would be applied
by the Hague Tribunal, but as far as possible in the same sense in which they would be decided by
war. The function of authority should be to render the appeal to force unnecessary, not to give
decisions contrary to those which would be reached by force.”
Unilateral Disarmament
In New Hopes for a Changing World(1951), Russell argued that the substitution of order
for anarchy in international relations would come about, if at all, through the superior power of
some one nation or group of nations. “And only after such a single government has been
constituted will it be possible for the evolution towards a democratic form of international
government to begin”, he wrote. Russell thought that such a process of evolution might take a
century or so. He felt that no evil was greater than world wars and that the establishment of a
world government was the only sure way to prevent them from recurring. He went so far as to
suggest a policy of unilateral disarmament in order that there should be no world war. He seems
not to have realized that the balance of power too is an effective guarantee of world peace, and
that such a balance of power is possible only if both the power-blocs remain fully armed.

Unpopular Essays: Introduction, Summary and Critical

Stance
The Author’s Intention to Combat Dogmatism
The book called Unpopular Essays is a collection of ten essays on various subjects, a
chapter containing Russell’s impressions of some of the eminent men with whom he had come in
contact, and a piece called “Obituary”, in which Russell anticipates his own death and expresses
briefly his own view of his character and his achievement.
In the preface to the book, Russell tells us that these essays were intended “to combat in one way
or another, the growth of dogmatism whether of the Right or of the Left, which has hitherto
characterized our tragic century”. Russell also tells us that these essays were inspired by a
serious purpose, even though at times they seem flippant. He also explains, in the ironical
manner so characteristic of him, why he has called this book “Unpopular Essays”. There are
several sentences in this book, says Russell, which some unusually stupid children of the age of
ten may find difficult to understand. That being so, he could not claim that the essays would be
popular; and so, if not popular, then, unpopular.
The Popular Appeal of these Essays
In actual fact, however, these essays have proved to be far from unpopular. The ideas
expressed in them possess a popular appeal, and they are written in a style which is easily
intelligible even to the layman. Besides, these essays have been made interesting, and almost
entertaining, by Russell’s unique treatment of the subjects chosen by him, and by his ironical and
satirical wit. Nor can the serious purpose of these essays be questioned. A critic has made the
following comment on the essays in this collection: “The frivolous wit on the surface almost
disguises the serious task of mental slum-clearance to which they are addressed”.
Russell’s Many-sided Genius
These essays cover a fairly wide range of subjects. We here see Russell as a philosopher, as
a political theorist, as a social scientist, as an educationist, as a moralist, as a propagandist, as a
close observer, and as an analyst of human life and character. Indeed, these essays reveal Russell’s
many-sided genius and his intellectual breadth.
The Contents of Russell’s Book
The following are the contents of this collection of essays: (1) “Philosophy and Politics”;
(2) “Philosophy for Laymen”; (3) “The Future of Mankind”; (4) “Philosophy’s Ulterior Motives”;
(5) “The Superior Virtue of the Oppressed”; (6) “On Being Modern-Minded”; (7) “An Outline of
Intellectual Rubbish”; (8) “The Functions of a Teacher”; (9) “Ideas That Have Helped Mankind”;
(10) “Ideas That Have Harmed Mankind”; (11) “Eminent Men I Have Known”; and (12)
“Obituary”. A brief synopsis of each of these chapters in this collection of essays is given below in
order that the student may be able to have a bird’s eye-view of the book as a whole.
(1) “Philosophy and Politics”
The Disastrous Political Consequences of Hegel’s Philosophy
This essay is an attack on the political consequences of Hegel’s philosophy and a defence
of Locke’s philosophy of empiricism. After briefly explaining Hegel’s belief in what Hegel called
the Absolute Idea, Russell tells us that this philosophy had disastrous consequences in the
political field. From Hegel’s metaphysic, it follows that true liberty consists in obedience to an
arbitrary authority, that free speech is an evil, that absolute monarchy is good, that war is
desirable, and that an international organization for the peaceful settlement of disputes would be
a misfortune. A philosophy which leads to such consequences is evidently something obnoxious,
and it is really surprising how at one time this philosophy held a sway over the minds of
intellectuals not only inGermany but even in Britain and America.
The Merits of Locke’s Philosophy of Empiricism
Russell then brings out the merits in Locke’s philosophy of empiricism which, he tells us,
offers a theoretical justification of democracy. Locke also preached religious toleration,
representative institutions, and the limitations of governmental power by the system of checks
and balances.
Conclusion
Russell concludes this essay by recommending empiricism not only on the ground of its
greater truth but also on ethical grounds. Empiricist liberalism is the only philosophy that can
serve mankind’s purposes in our times.

(2) “Philosophy for Laymen”

The Need of Teaching Philosophy to People
In this essay, Russell explains very briefly the uses of philosophy. Philosophy, he says,
means a love of wisdom. Philosophy in this sense is what people must acquire if the new technical
powers achieved by man are not to plunge mankind into the greatest conceivable disaster.
However, the philosophy which the ordinary people should be taught is not the same thing as the
philosophy of specialists.
The Theoretical Function of Philosophy
Philosophy has always had two different objects: to arrive at a theoretical understanding
of the structure of the world; and to discover and propagate the best possible way of life.
Philosophy has thus been closely related to science on the one hand and to religion on the other.
On its theoretical side philosophy partly consists in the framing of large general hypotheses which
science is not yet in a position to test. (When it becomes possible to test such hypotheses they
become part of science, and no longer belong to philosophy,) There are a number of purely
theoretical questions, of everlasting interest, which science is unable to answer at present. Do we
survive after death? Can mind dominate matter, or does matter completely dominate mind? Does
this universe have a purpose, or is it driven by blind necessity? To keep alive the interest in such
questions is one of the functions of philosophy.
The Practical Aspect of Philosophy
On its practical side, philosophy can greatly increase a man’s value as a human being and
as a citizen. It can give a habit of exact and careful thought. It can give an impressive breadth and
scope to the conception of the aims of life. It can give to the individual a correct estimate of himself
in relation to society, and of man in the present to man in the past and in the future. It can offer a
cure, or at least a palliative, for the anxieties and the anguish which afflict mankind at present.
(3) “The Future of Mankind”
The Need of a World-Government
Here Russell visualizes the consequences of the next world war and expresses the view
that only the establishment of a world-government can bring about lasting peace in the world.
Russell would like the establishment of a world-government to take place under the leadership
of America because there is greater respect in America for a civilized life than there is in Russia.
By a civilized life, Russell means freedom of thought, freedom of inquiry, freedom of discussion,
and humane feeling. If Russia dominates the world, all these freedoms will be crushed, and there
will be a narrowing of science, philosophy, art, and literature. Only democracy and a free
circulation of opinion can prevent a powerful government from establishing a servile State, with
luxury for the few and overworked poverty for the many. Such a servile State has been established
by the Soviet Government wherever it is in control.
Three Dangers to be Averted
Mankind has to guard against three dangers: (a) the extinction of the human race; (b) a
going back to barbarism; and (c)the establishment of a universal servile State, involving misery
for the vast majority, and the disappearance of all progress in knowledge and thought. The only
way to guard against these dangers is the establishment of a world-government through peaceful
means, if possible, and through war if necessary.
(4) “Philosophy’s Ulterior Motives”
The Distorting Influence of Desire Upon a Philosopher’s Reasoning
In this essay, Russell dwells upon the dangers and pitfalls faced by philosophers. It often
happens that a philosopher is led by certain preconceived notions into a false reasoning, and in
this way arrives at false conclusions. Russell takes the case of Descartes first. Descartes had a
passionate desire for certainty, and so he started thinking out a new method of achieving certainty.
He found that, while everything else could be doubted, he could not doubt his own existence. This
became an excellent starting-point for him. He existed because he could see himself clearly and
distinctly; and so he came to the conclusion that the things which he conceived very clearly and
very distinctly were all true. He then began to conceive all sorts of things very clearly and very
distinctly; for example, that an effect could not have more perfection than its cause. Since he could
form an idea of God—that is, of a being more perfect than himself—this idea must have had a
cause other than himself, which could only be God; therefore, God existed. Since God was good,
He would not perpetually deceive Descartes; therefore the objects which Descartes saw when
awake must really exist. And in this way Descartes went on throwing all intellectual caution to the
winds. Everything that followed from this kind of reasoning was loose and slipshod and hasty. His
method of reasoning thus showed the distorting influence of his own desire.
The Absurdities of the Reasoning of Some Other Well-known Philosophers
After showing us the absurdity of the conclusions which Descartes reached by his way of
reasoning, Russell goes on to expose the absurdity of the reasoning and the conclusions arrived
at by certain other philosophers. The other philosophers whom Russell considers here are Leibniz,
Bishop Berkeley, Kant, Hegel, and finally Marx.
(5) “The Superior Virtue of the Oppressed”
The Tendency to Discover Some SuperiorVirtue in the Oppressed Sections of Society
In this essay Russell illustrates his view that there is a tendency on the part of writers,
especially moralists, to attribute some superior virtue to those classes of people who are
oppressed. Russell gives us five examples of the classes of people who have been, or who are,
oppressed and who therefore are thought to possess some superior virtue.
The Various Examples Offered by Russell to Prove his Thesis
The first example to illustrate the central idea of this essay is that of the poor people. The
poor people were long regarded as morally better than the rich. The next example is that of nations
which have been under foreign domination. Subject nations were believed to have possessed
certain superior gifts and some special charm. However, as soon as the subject nations became
independent, the belief in their superior gifts also disappeared. Then there is the case of the female
sex. Women were believed to have a certain spiritual quality as long as they were dominated by
men; but as soon as they achieved equality with men, their angelic qualities also vanished. Next
is the example of children. Children were thought to be innocent and pure as long as parents could
tyrannize over them; subsequently these superior qualities disappeared, and a new belief arose,
namely that there was great wickedness in children in their unconscious minds. Lastly, a superior
virtue has been found in the proletariat or the working-class, because this class has been
oppressed for a long time. As soon as the proletariat attains its full rights, the superior virtue
attributed to this class of people will also disappear. Stated in a nutshell, the thesis of this essay is
that there is a tendency to glorify the oppressed class of people, the object behind such
glorification being to continue the exploitation of that oppressed class,

(6) “On Being Modern-Minded”

Opinions Dominated By Fashion
It has become a general tendency nowadays, says Russell, to adopt opinions which are
current, and to show a contempt for the past. When fashion alone dominates opinion, it becomes
unnecessary for people to think for themselves. The result is that a man deliberately suppresses
what is individual in himself in order to acquire the opinions which are popular. A mentally
solitary life for an individual has become pointless nowadays, according to the modern standards.
The Value of Detachment and Objectivity
After criticizing the present-day trend towards adopting ready-made current opinions,
Russell concludes the essay by pointing out the value of detachment and objectivity. A certain
degree of isolation both in space and in time is necessary for the most important intellectual work.
We must not sacrifice the independence of our minds merely to win the admiration of the crowd
by holding opinions which have become current.
(7) “An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish”
Irrational Beliefs Propagated By Priests
This is an essay directed against irrationality. The ages of faith, says Russell, were ages of
superstition, and so there was little evidence of rationality in the outlook of people. Priests have
always propagated irrational beliefs. The whole conception of sin in the past was merely a
manifestation of the superstitious bent of mind. Similarly, the views relating to the resurrection
of the body, the sacredness of human corpses, divorce, etc., were purely superstitious.
False Ideas of National and Racial Superiority
As soon as we abandon our own reason, says Russell, and are content to rely upon
authority, there is no end to our troubles. Human beliefs have various causes. There is, for
instance, the belief which human beings have about their own excellence. The Englishman, the
Frenchman, the Russian— each thinks of the superiority of his own nation and his own superiority
as a member of that nation. There is also the belief that man is the supreme creation of God, and
that centuries of evolution have been guided by one great divine purpose, namely, the appearance
of man. But when we realize that life on this planet is temporary, this belief in the importance of
man loses its validity. A scientific view of the future of the solar system lends no support to the
view that man is all-important. Then there is the belief in the racial superiority of the white man
over the coloured people, while the scientific fact is that there is no difference between the blood
of a negro and the blood of a white man.
A False Belief Regarding Human Nature and the Inevitability of Wars
There is another wide-spread belief having no rational basis. It is that human nature
cannot be changed, and that, for this reason, there will always be wars. The actual fact is that a
powerful government, by following certain psychological methods, can produce a population of
sane and reasonable people who will discard war. Unfortunately most governments do not wish
to achieve such a result, because sane and reasonable people would fail to admire the politicians
who are at the head of these governments. Most governments now instill their own particular
brands of political ideologies among their respective populations. This kind of thing leads to a
bitter hostility among nations which have been fed upon conflicting ideologies.
Some Other Irrational Beliefs
Irrational beliefs hold a sway upon the minds of people with regard to birth control and
with regard to the nature and disposition of the female sex. There are also irrational
generalizations about national characteristics.
Some Simple Rules of Conduct
Russell is of the opinion that by observing a few simple rules mankind can avoid the
deplorable consequences which afflict human life because of irrational beliefs. One such rule is to
base one’s beliefs on actual observation. People must not be dogmatic; they must keep their minds
open, and they must discuss their opinions with those whose views and opinions are different
from their own. The feeling of self-esteem should also not be allowed to play any part in the
holding of beliefs. Another desirable course is for human beings to conquer fear, because fear is
the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of cruelty.
A Note of Frivolity
Russell closes this essay on a frivolous note, saying that superstitions are not always dark
and cruel but that often they add to the gaiety of life.
(8) “The Functions of a Teacher”
The Need of Freedom for the Teacher
In this essay we see Russell as an educationist. Russell is opposed to the rigid manner in
which the State nowadays enforces its own ideology through the education that is imparted to
pupils. In countries like Russia, the system of education is such as to produce fanatical bigots who
are ignorant of the world outside their own country and who are unaccustomed to free discussion.
As a result of the kind of education that is imparted to pupils in different countries, the spirit of
cultural internationalism has received a severe setback. Russell pleads for the emancipation of the
teacher from the intellectual bondage imposed upon him by the government of his country.
Education should never be dogmatic, and that is possible only if the teachers are free to teach
what they please and in the manner they think to be the best.
Teachers, the Guardians of Civilization
Teachers are—more than any other class of people—the guardians of civilization.
Civilization is a matter partly of knowledge and partly of emotion, and it is the duty of the teacher
to impart the right kind of knowledge in an objective spirit, and similarly develop in the pupils the
right kind of emotions. If democracy is to survive, the teacher should try to produce in his pupils
the spirit of tolerance which will enable them to understand people who are different from
themselves. An attitude of intolerance, which results from ignorance, is the very opposite of a
civilized outlook; and the teacher should not allow the spirit of intolerance to take roots in the
minds of his pupils. If the teacher is to succeed in his purpose, he must be free: he should feel
himself to be an individual directed by an inner creative impulse, and not an individual dominated
and controlled by an outside authority.
(9) “Ideas That Have Helped Mankind”
The Advances Made in Pre-historic Times
In pre-historic times, mankind benefited greatly by the evolution, of language, the
discovery of fire, the art of taming animals, the invention of agriculture, and the art of writing.
The Progress in Mathematics and Astronomy
In historic times, the earliest important steps were taken in the spheres of mathematics
and astronomy by the Babylonians and later by the Greeks. In the seventeenth century, Galileo,
Descartes,Newton, and Leibniz made great advances in the human understanding of Nature.
Galileo unified the principles governing the earth and the heavens by his law of inertia.
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
From the seventeenth century onwards, it has become increasingly clear that, in order to
understand natural laws, we must get rid of every kind of ethical and aesthetic bias. It was geology
and Darwin’s theory of evolution that first upset the irrational religious beliefs of scientists.
The Idea of the Brotherhood of Man
Scientific progress without a corresponding moral and political progress may only increase
the magnitude of the disaster that the misuse of scientific skill and technique may bring about.
Among moral ideas, the brotherhood of man is an ideal which owed its first force to political
developments. Subsequently, this ideal received a great support from Buddhism and Christianity.
The Ideas of Liberty and Democracy
The ideas of liberty, equality, and fraternity have religious origins. The concept of
individual liberty within the State first entered practical politics in the form of religious toleration.
Other ideas which have helped mankind in the sphere of politics are law and government.
Democracy is a system of government which aims at reconciling government with liberty.
The Need for an International Government
Orderly social life depends upon a balance of certain ideas and institutions which are:
government, law, individual liberty, and democracy. But modern techniques have created a new
crisis for mankind. In order to face this crisis, people must recognize the need of an international
government. If an international government of some kind is not established, the next world war
will destroy all civilization.
(10) “Ideas That Have Harmed Mankind”
The Harm Done by Evil Passions
The misfortunes of human beings have their main source in evil passions rather than in
ideas or beliefs. People in the past enjoyed the spectacles of cruelty such as the burning of heretics,
and many people even today find the brutalities of war to be enjoyable. Men’s cruel impulses can
do tremendous harm to them.
The Harm Done by Christian Asceticism and by Political Asceticism
As for ideas and beliefs, much harm has been done by religious superstitions. Even
Christian saints, who practised asceticism, found pleasure in the thought that sinners would be
subjected to great tortures in the next life. Nowadays Christian asceticism has given way to
political asceticism. Communism, for instance, teaches its followers to sacrifice all pleasures and
to live a life of hard work and toil because those who do not do so have to be either liquidated or
put in concentration camps.
Cruelty Resulting from the Belief in Witchcraft
The feeling that much of our suffering is due to the ill-will of other people led to the belief
in witchcraft, and this belief was responsible for much cruelty towards those who were accused of
being witches.
Envy and War
Envy is one of the most powerful sources of false belief. In the international sphere, envy
has led to he philosophy of economic nationalism. And this false belief becomes a cause of war.
The Suffering Caused by Pride
Another passion which gives rise to false beliefs that are politically harmful is pride—pride
of nationality, pride of race, pride of sex, pride of class, and pride of creed. All these kinds of pride
lead to tremendous injustice and suffering.
A Delusion
Yet another harmful belief results from the delusion which men and nations sometimes
have that they are the special instruments of the divine will.
The Need of Tolerance and of an International Government
Russell closes this essay with some very useful advice. Both in public and in private life,
says he, the important thing is tolerance and kindliness. Besides, the establishment of an
international government has become very necessary for the survival of civilization and for the
prevention of war. What the world needs today is (1) political, economic, and educational
organization; and (2) certain moral qualities, especially charity and tolerance instead of some
fanatical faith represented by an “ism”.
 (11) “Eminent Men I Have Known”
Eminent Men in Different Fields
This essay is a brief record of the impressions that Russell formed of certain eminent
personalities with whom he came into contact. These eminent personalities included poets,
philosophers, scientists, and politicians.
Poets
Among the poets whom Russell met, he mentions Browning, Tennyson, and Rupert
Brooke. Russell found Browning to be a pleasant and kindly gentleman, very much at home at tea-
parties, but without the divine fire that is generally expected of a poet. For Tennyson, Russell
developed an attitude of scorn. Rupert Brooke struck Russell as “beautiful and vital”, but the total
impression was marred by a touch of Byronic insincerity in the man.
Philosophers and Scientists
As for philosophers, the most impressive in Russell’s opinion was William James whom
he found to be completely free from all consciousness of being a great man. Russell found Henry
Sidgwick to be impressive through his quality of intellectual honesty. Among the scientists,
Einstein impressed Russell as combining a powerful intellect with a childlike simplicity.
Politicians: Lenin and Gladstone
As for politicians, Russell knew seven Prime Ministers of whom the most unforgettable
was Mr. Gladstone. The only other man in public life as impressive as Mr. Gladstone was
Lenin. Gladstone was an embodiment of Victorianism, and Lenin was an embodiment of Marxian
formulas. Lenin was cruel while Gladstone was not. Lenin had no respect for tradition,
while Gladstonehad a great deal. Lenin considered all means legitimate for securing the victory of
his party, whereas for Gladstone politics was a game with certain rules that must be observed.
Both men derived their personal force from a firm conviction of their own Tightness.
A Simple and Good Man, though not Eminent
At the end of this essay, Russell mentions a man who impressed him a good deal but who
was not eminent in any sense. This man was a gardener who could neither read nor write, but who
was a perfect type of simple goodness. Russell says that he could never forget this man because of
his purity of mind. Worldly success seldom comes to such men, but they inspire love and
admiration in those who know them.
(12) “Obituary” (1937)
An Obituary about Himself
Here Russell shows his sense of humour by writing his own obituary. An obituary is the
announcement of a death made by the relatives or friends of a deceased person, Here Russell
imagines that he would die on June 1, 1962 and writes his own obituary in anticipation of his
death.
Mathematical and Philosophical Works
As an obituary is also expected to contain some of the important events of the life of a
deceased person, Russell here mentions what he regards as some of the foremost incidents of his
life. He tells us that in his youth he did work of importance in mathematical logic. He informs us
that he did not enjoy the advantages of a public school education but that he was taught at home
by tutors until the age of eighteen when he entered Trinity College, Cambridge, becoming seventh
Wrangler in 1893 and a Fellow in 1895.
Among the books that he produced, Russell mentions The Foundations of Geometry, The
Philosophy of Leibniz, The Principles of Mathematics, and Principia Mathematica (in
collaboration with Dr. A.N. Whitehead).
His Pacifist Ideas
Russell also refers here to his pacifist ideas and his staunch opposition to war. His
opposition to war was regarded by some people as eccentric. As a result of his campaign against
war during the Great War of 1914-18, he lost his job as a Lecturer atTrinity College, and had to
spend a few months in prison.
Other Ideas
Then Russell talks of his visits to Russia and to China in 1920, and goes on to mention his
advocacy of socialism, educational reform, and a less rigid code of morals as regards marriage. In
World War II, Russell took no public part, having escaped to a neutral country just before its
outbreak.
Russell as a Humanist: his Pacifism and his Championship of Democracy; His Moral Fervour
All these essays show Russell not only as a philosopher but also as a man of strong
humanitarian views. He is opposed to war; and he is a great liberal and an ardent supporter of
individual freedom and democracy. These essays also show his moral fervour which appears in
his advocacy of such qualities as tolerance, kindliness, mutual helpfulness, and sympathy. Russell
had a broad mind and an all-embracing outlook: as an internationalist he urges the establishment
of a world-government because he finds that the continuance of sovereign states with their
narrow, nationalistic outlook can no longer serve the common interest of mankind but are a
divisive force. In short, Russell appears in these essays as a most progressive and enlightened
thinker who has the good of mankind at heart.
The Style of these Essays
Russell is one of the great prose-stylists of the twentieth century. Although a philosopher,
he does not write in a distorted or obscure manner even when writing about philosophy as we see
in the very first essay called Philosophy and Politics, and in another essay called Philosophy’s
Ulterior Motives. His style is characterized by intellectual brilliance, clarity and lucidity, and a
catholicity of temper. In addition to these qualities his style also shows his use of irony and a gay
wit. His writing exactly reflects his crystalline, scintillating mind. All these essays are illumined
by the clarity and grace of expression which are the most striking virtues of his style. Russell also
gives evidence here of his capacity for making condensed statements and generalizations having
a ready appeal. Russell did not evolve a style according to any premeditated theory or doctrine.
His style came to him naturally. In his case, as in the case of other great writers, it can be said with
certitude that the style is the man. His is a style which makes use of all the resources of the English
language, excluding nothing and attaching no undue importance to any particular ingredient.
Parallelisms, antitheses, contrast, simile, metaphor, quotation, anecdote, simple words and
difficult words, short sentences and long sentences—all these are utilized by him to express
himself effectively. But there is nothing gaudy or ostentatious about this style. It uses no
ornamental devices. It is a plain, unembellished style. It does not even employ rhetoric. In fact,
we cannot use a simple formula for this style as we can, for instance, for Bacon’s style (concise
and epigrammatic), for Carlyle’s style (erudite, cumbersome, eccentric), or for Ruskin’s style
(musical prose). This is a style in which a perfect synthesis has been achieved between a multitude
of different ingredients. In its own way it is a unique style.

To what extent and in what way do the Unpopular Essays show

Bertrand Russell to be an opponent of dogmatism and an apostle of
liberalism?
The Meaning of Dogmatism and of Liberalism
Dogmatism implies a stubborn holding of beliefs and opinions, and a refusal to subject
them to the scrutiny of reason or verify them by evidence. Liberalism, on the contrary, means
keeping an open mind, a mind receptive to the fresh evidence which may become available.
Liberalism, in other words, implies a readiness to modify, alter, or discard the views which one
holds if fresh evidence so dictates. Russell is a determined opponent of dogmatism of all kinds,
dogmatism in the philosophical sphere, dogmatism in the religious sphere, dogmatism in the
political and social spheres, and dogmatism in educational theories. He is truly an apostle of
liberalism. The Unpopular-Essays provide ample evidence to show Russell as a relentless critic
of all kinds of dogmatic beliefs, and an ardent upholder of the liberal attitude in all fields of
thinking.

The Dogmatism of the Catholics, the Nazis, and the Communists

Russell’s opposition to dogmatism in the philosophical and religious spheres, and in the
political sphere, is evident in the very first essay, Philosophy and Politics. He here points out that
the Catholic Church is connected to the philosophy of Aquinas, and that the Soviet government is
connected to the philosophy of Karl Marx. The Nazis upheld German idealism, though the degree
of allegiance which they offered to Kant, Fitchte, or Hegel respectively was not clearly laid down.
All these three classes of people: Catholics, Communists, and Nazis, are dogmatists, Russell
rightly tells us. John Locke is mentioned by Russell as an example of the liberal thinker who
showed himself to be a powerful opponent of Hegel and the Hegelian philosophy. Even Plato was
a dogmatist, though his dogmatism was not realized until his disciples, Lenin and Hitler, had
committed their worst excesses in the persecution of those who did not accept their political
ideologies. The political consequences of Hegel’s philosophy, like those of the philosophy of Plato,
proved to be disastrous. It follows from Hegel’s philosophy that true liberty consists in obedience
to arbitrary authority, that free speech is an evil, that absolute monarchy is good, that war is
desirable, and that there is no need at all for an international organization to bring about a
peaceful settlement of disputes. Hegel’s philosophy had a great influence on Karl Marx who took
over some of Hegel’s most fanciful tenets, more particularly the belief that history develops
according to a logical plan and is concerned to find ways of avoiding self-contradiction. According
to the philosophy of Hegel, and according to the disciples of Marx, any degree of coercion is
justified if it leads to the goals stated by them. Both Hegel and Marx thus justify autocracy or
despotism or tyranny on the basis of their dogmas.
Locke’s Liberalism
Locke’s philosophy of empiricism, on the contrary, lends support to an attitude of
liberalism and to the democratic values. Locke’s empiricism is intimately connected with his views
on liberty and toleration, and with his opposition to absolute monarchy. Locke preached religious
toleration, representative institutions, and the limitation of governmental power by the system of
checks and balances.
The Need of Tentativeness and Tolerance
An examination of these two philosophies makes Russell come to the conclusion that “only
through a revival of liberal tentativeness and tolerance can our world survive”. Russell condemns
dictatorships, concentration camps, and world wars, and mentions the brutal treatment of the
Jews at Auschwitz as an example of persecution resulting from dogmatic beliefs. Russell
advocates a rational outlook or a scientific attitude: “Science is empirical, tentative and
undogmatic; all immutable dogma is unscientific”.
The Advantages of Dogmatism Purely Illusory
Russell also rebuts the argument that in a war between liberals and dogmatists (or
fanatics), the dogmatists are sure to win. Russell points out that dogmatists or fanatics have failed
over and over again because they were too unscientific to adopt the right means even when their
aims were good. In every important war since 1700, the more democratic side has been victorious,
and the dogmatists have been defeated. Nor does Russell accept the view that systems of dogma,
such as Marxism and fascism are capable of producing a greater degree of social unity. During
World War II, no nation showed greater social unity than Englandwith its democratic system.
Empiricist Liberalism, the Need of the Times
Russell closes this essay with the statement that dogma demands authority rather than
intelligent thought as the source of opinion, that dogma requires the persecution of those who
disagree, and that empiricist liberalism is the only philosophy that can serve the purpose in the
modern world.
Political Dogmatism in Soviet Russia
In the essay, The Future of Mankind,Russell condemns the political dogmatism which
holds the field in Soviet Russia and in countries under Soviet control. In Poland, for instance,
education has been reduced to learning the formulas of Stalinist orthodoxy. From such an
educational system nothing of intellectual value can result, says Russell. Russell advocates the
freedom of thought, the freedom of inquiry, the freedom of discussion, and humane feeling which
are found in the U.S.A. A Russian victory in any future world war would be an appalling disaster.
Russell gives several examples of the way in which the government in Soviet Russia tries to control
the minds of the people with its dogmatic teaching. To take only one example, in America one may
write a book debunking Lincoln if one feels so inclined; in Russia, if one writes a book debunking
Lenin, the book would not be published, and the writer would be liquidated. Only democracy and
free publicity, says Russell, can prevent the holders of power from establishing a servile State.
Religious Dogmatism
In the essay, An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish, Russell first of all condemns the
dogmatism of priests. Daring the ages of faith, the priests taught that man’s sins were punished
by pestilence, by famine, by earthquakes, by floods etc.; and many thousands of witches were
burnt at the stake. So dogmatic were the men of religion that they put up a stiff resistance
againstDarwin’s theory of evolution; and so dogmatic are they still that they are now fighting in
the same fanatical manner against scientific theories of psychology and education. Another
example of religious dogmatism is that, although the Copernican astronomy is taught in schools
and colleges, it has yet not produced any great influence on people’s religious beliefs and their
morals; in fact, this astronomy has not even succeeded in destroying the belief in astrology, so
that people still believe in the influence of stars upon human life. Russell’s liberalism also compels
him to question the whole conception of sin. Russell feels puzzled by what the religious people
consider sinful and by what they do not consider sinful. He exposes the absurdity of such dogmatic
beliefs as that human beings will one day rise from their graves, that sexual intercourse is sinful,
that there is no need to show any sympathy for the lower animals, that mercy-killing is wicked. In
this context, Russell ridicules the puritanical ideas of Tolstoy, Mahatma Gandhi, and the
Manichaeans. One of the most amusing examples of the absurdity of such beliefs is a Catholic
theologian’s view that a priest may fondle a nun’s breasts provided he does so without any evil
intention.
Other Dogmas and their Consequences
Russell also dwells in the same essay upon the fallacious ideas which result from the
dogmas about race and blood. A dogma which causes much mischief is the view that human
nature cannot be changed. As a consequence of this belief is the dogmatic assertion that there will
always be wars because human nature is so constituted that wars will always be needed.
Opposition to birth control is the result of another dogmatic belief on the part of theologians. In
short, dogmatic beliefs have done tremendous harm to mankind, and so Russell suggests certain
simple rules by which human beings can rid themselves of at least certain kinds of dogmatism,
the general rule in this connection being that one should freely discuss one’s ideas and opinions
with those who hold different views and opinions. Russell advocates complete freedom of
discussion and exchange of views.
The Dangers of Dogmatic Education
The Functions of a Teacher is another essay in which Russell appears as a champion of
liberalism and a foe of dogmatism. He here deplores the fact that institutions such as universities
largely remained in the grip of the dogmatists for many centuries. Russell refers to the dangers of
State education which seeks to control the minds of people by instilling certain dogmatic beliefs
among them. The evils to be feared as a result of State education were seen in their full magnitude
in Nazi Germany, and are still seen in Russia. State education in such countries produces fanatical
bigots, who are ignorant of the world outside their own countries, and who are totally
unaccustomed to free discussion. The modern dogmatists, says Russell, are preaching one creed
in Germany, another inItaly, another in Russia, and yet another inJapan. This kind of thing does
great damage to the concept of cultural internationalism which has rapidly been declining ever
since the First World War. The inculcation of different dogmatic beliefs in different countries can
only lead to another world war, because each set of dogmatists thinks itself to be in the right and
all others to be in the wrong. Russell pleads for complete freedom to the teacher who should feel
himself to be an individual directed by an inner creative impulse, not dominated and fettered by
an outside authority. He strongly disapproves of the system of education by which nationalistic
feeling is encouraged in every country and schoolchildren are taught that the inhabitants of other
countries are inferior to the inhabitants of their own country. In this way, Russell upholds the
liberal ideal in the field of education.
Liberalism: Brotherhood of Man; Individual Liberty; Democracy
In the essay, Ideas That Have Helped Mankind, Russell lends a strong support to such
liberal ideas as the brotherhood of man and the freedom of the individual. He traces the
development of the concept of the brotherhood of man which was invented by the Stoics, and he
dwells upon the meaning of individual liberty. The greatest of the theoretical advocates of liberty
was John Locke whose philosophy Russell has discussed in the very first essay in our collection.
In this context, Russell refers to the feeling of perplexity which Stalin experienced when, in
compliance with the democratic traditions, Winston Churchill resigned as the British Prime
Minister when his party was defeated in the general election. The dogmatist Stalin could not
understand why Churchill should have given up his control of the government because of the
result of a popular vote. In this context, Russell writes: “I am a firm believer in democratic
representative government as the best form for those who have the tolerance and self-restraint
that is required to make it workable.” But Russell is opposed to dogmatism even in supporting
democracy as a form of government. He is a believer in democracy, but not a fanatical believer in
democracy. He thinks democracy to be an excellent form of government, but it is not a desirable
form of government for every country, because some countries are not mentally and morally fit
for this system.
Further Condemnation by Russell of Dogmatic Beliefs
Dogmatic beliefs are also condemned and ridiculed by Russell in the companion-essay
called Ideas That Have Harmed Mankind. Russell mocks at the dogmatism of the Christian saints
who, abstaining from the pleasures of senses, yet enjoyed thinking that pagans and heretics would
suffer eternal tortures in hell. This is described by Russell as a fierce form of Christian dogma, an
ascetic form of cruelty. The modern political scene shows somewhat similar beliefs. The German
Nazis and the Russian communists have given a political twist to the Christian dogma; they have
replaced hell with concentration camps and they teach that the best life is a life of hard work in
the service of the government. Another dogma in modern times is the philosophy of economic
nationalism which is based on the false belief that the economic interest of one nation is
necessarily opposed to that of another. Still more examples of dogmatic beliefs are the beliefs in
the superiority of the nation, or the race, or the sex, or the class, or the creed to which one belongs.
All these dogmatic beliefs lead only to conflicts and persecution. And Russell’s recipe is that “in
public as in private life, the important thing is tolerance and kindliness”. Once again Russell
asserts that democracy is an excellent form of government, and once again he points out that the
believers in democracy should not assume a fanatical tone, because democracy is not the best
system of government always and everywhere.
One of the important liberal ideas of Russell is that only the establishment of an
international government can now save the world.
How will you account for Bertrand Russell’s appeal to the modern
reader? Illustrate your answer from the essays prescribed for you.
The Continuing Validity of Russell’s Ideas
The ideas which Russell preached and which he tried to popularize have not lost their
validity even today. The problems which he wanted to solve and the dangers against which he
warned the readers of his own day continue almost unabated, and in some cases the dangers have
actually increased. The value of the suggestions and remedies offered by Russell also continues
undiminished. We can still greatly benefit by Russell’s exhortations. The relevance of Russell’s
thought to our times is very great, indeed.

Russell’s Opposition to Dogmatism, and his Advocacy of Liberalism

In the preface to the Unpopular Essays, Russell tells us of his purpose to combat the
growth of dogmatism, whether of the Right or of the Left, which has hitherto characterized our
tragic century. This purpose becomes perfectly clear as we go through these essays. In Philosophy
and Politics, for instance, he tells us that dogma demands authority, rather than intelligent
thought, as the source of opinion; dogma requires the persecution of those who disagree; dogma
calls upon its followers to suppress their natural sympathy and kindness in favour of systematic
hatreds. The conflicts that occur between rival dogmatists are bound to lead to war; and war, in
our scientific age, means universal death. As against dogmatism, Russell advocates liberalism
which means keeping an open mind and a readiness to change one’s opinions when fresh evidence
becomes available. The liberal creed is one of “live and let live”, of toleration and freedom, of
moderation and absence of fanaticism in political programmes. In the essay, The Future of
Mankind, Russell points out that Russian control over Poland led to education in that country
losing its liberal character; education was there reduced to learning the formulas of communist
theory; and from such an educational system nothing of intellectual value can result. He also
speaks of the absence of intellectual freedom in theSoviet Union itself where, if a man writes a
book debunking Lenin, he would be liquidated. In the essay The Functions of a Teacher, Russell
points out that the young in Nazi Germany became, and in Russia still become, fanatical bigots,
ignorant of the world outside their own country. In An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish Russell
suggests that a good way of ridding yourself of certain kinds of dogmatism is to become aware of
opinions held in social circles different from your own.
The Value of Russell’s Campaign Against Dogmatism
The value of Russell’s campaign against political dogmatism is very great even today. If
anything, this dogmatism has further hardened in communist countries like Russia and China.
Countries like Poland,Hungary, and Czechoslovakia continue to be under the rigid control of
Russian communist ideology. All these countries have a totalitarian system of government which
is opposed to individual freedom in any form. A citizen in any one of these is a slave to the ideas
and doctrines which the government there constantly instils among the people. The writings of a
man like Russell would not, for instance, find their way into any of the communist countries for
fear lest his ideas should sow rebellion or discontent in the minds of the people there. By going
through Russell’s ideas we realize how fortunate we are in living in a country where the
government does not indoctrinate its citizens and does not try to bring about a regimentation or
uniformity of thought.
Russell’s Emphasis on Rationalism
The essay called An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish places much emphasis on the need of
a rational attitude towards life. Unfortunately, says Russell, cruelty, persecution and superstition
have been increasing in this world by leaps and bounds, and rationality has been pushed into the
background. Russell then points out the irrationality which characterizes the religious beliefs that
have for centuries been held by priests and propagated by them. The belief in witchcraft, the belief
that people’s sins are punished by pestilence or earthquake or famine, the whole conception of
sin, the view that all sexual intercourse is wicked—all these are examples of irrational beliefs. Then
there ate the irrational ideas about the superiority of particular races. Irrational also is the view
that human nature cannot be changed and that there will always be wars. Science has always tried
to fight against all such irrational beliefs, and today science is fighting one of its most difficult
battles in the sphere of psychology. What is worse even than holding irrational beliefs is to become
dogmatic in holding them, and that is the general tendency where religious beliefs are concerned.
The Value of Russell’s Gospel of Rationalism Today
All this is applicable even to present-day conditions in which we find ourselves. Russell’s
gospel of rationalism is of the utmost importance for our own country if we want to accelerate the
pace of our progress. Our people still remain extremely orthodox and conservative in holding
certain beliefs in the spheres of religion and morals. Superstitions still reign supreme in our
country. The worship of all kinds of deities goes on here with the greatest possible fervour. The
exploitation of people by the priests of various religions in this country continues to be as great as
ever it was, and the number of the so-called “god-men” is on the increase. People still believe that
they can wash away their sins by visiting temples, shrines, and similar other places of pilgrimage.
The same orthodox attitudes govern our notions of morality. In view of all this, if we were to follow
the teaching of of Russell, we could cleanse our society of many social ills.
The Value in Our Times of Russell’s Emphasis on Liberty and Democracy
Russell is a great advocate, as has already been indicated above, of individual liberty and
of democracy as a form of government. In the essay The Future of Mankind, he expresses his
preference for the American way of life which shows more respect for civilization than we find in
Soviet Russia. The Americans have a genuine respect for the freedom of thought, the freedom of
inquiry, the freedom of discussion, and humane feeling. In America, one may hold any views on
the subject of genetics; and there one may even write a book debunking such a great man as
Abraham Lincoln. Only democracy and free publicity can prevent the holders of power from
establishing a servile State. In the essay, Ideas That Have Helped Mankind,Russell points out
that democracy was invented as a device for reconciling government with liberty. Democracy
makes men’s tenure of power temporary and dependent upon popular approval. In doing so,
democracy prevents the worst abuses of power. In a democracy a man cannot be punished except
by due process of law. Furthermore, democracy means free speech, a free press, and the freedom
of religion. The value of the emphasis that Russell puts upon democracy and individual liberty is
again evident to us. When we look at the kind of dictatorship that now prevails
inAfghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran, not to speak of the countries under communist influence, we
realize again how fortunate we ourselves are. We have not forgotten how, during two years or so
of the Emergency that was declared in this country, all kinds of excesses and injustices were
perpetrated, and how freedom of all kinds was completely crushed. We can only hope that the
democratic form of government with all its advantages and in spite of all its disadvantages, will
continue in our country. These essays by Russell serve to strengthen our democratic beliefs and
our love of freedom. And yet we must not forget that Russell does not approve of fanaticism or
dogmatism in our holding democratic views. As he points out in the essay, Ideas That Have
Harmed Mankind, democracy is not the best system always and everywhere: there are many
nations which are not yet morally and politically well-equipped for the success of parliamentary
institutions. In the essayPhilosophy and Politics also, Russell says much the same thing. There he
points out that a fanatical belief in democracy makes democratic institutions impossible, as
appeared in England under Cromwell and inFrance during the French Revolution.
Russell’s Suggestion About a World-government
Russell is a great believer in a single government for the whole world. In the essay The
Future of Mankind, he insists that the world can be saved only through the establishment of a
world-government. The hope of a world-government, he says, might be realized by the victory of
the United States in the next world war, or by the victory of the Soviet Union, or by agreement
among the leading nations. A world-government is essential if world wars are to be prevented and
the total extinction of the human race is to be avoided. In the essay,Ideas That Have Harmed
Mankind, he again advocates the establishment of an international government to prevent wars.
In the essay, Ideas That Have Helped Mankind, he says that either man must revert to primitive
conditions or we must learn to submit to an international government. An international
government, whether good, or bad, or indifferent, will make the continuation of the human
species possible. He also says that an international government is at least as important to mankind
as national government.
The Relevance of this Suggestion to Our Times
Now, we do not doubt the value and importance of an international government which can
prevent armed conflicts between nations and especially worldwide conflicts. However, we do
doubt the feasibility of such an idea. The idea is great and noble, but it is, to use Russell’s own
phraseology, “Utopian and impossible”. Every nation today has a sense of its own importance,
and even small nations have learnt to assert themselves in international affairs. We cannot
therefore imagine that the nations of the world, and especially the super-powers, will surrender
their individual sovereignty in favour of a world-government. Nor can a world-government be
established by means of a war which Russell suggests in The Future of Mankind, because any
world war now will destroy all civilization. World peace can now be preserved only through a
universal recognition by all nations that the next world war will mean either the end of the world
or the reversion of mankind to a state of barbarism, Still the ideal of a world-government should
not be dismissed summarily; ideals have their own value even when they cannot be given a
practical shape.
Russell’s Ideas on Education and their Value Today
In the essay The Functions of a Teacher, Russell offers certain suggestions which appeal
to us even today. Teachers are, says Russell, the custodians of civilization. But, in order to perform
their functions well, teachers should be allowed the freedom to teach what they please and how
they please. Russell strongly disapproves of bureaucratic control over education. Teachers should
be protected from intellectual bondage. A teacher should feel himself to be an individual directed
by an inner creative impulse, not dominated and fettered by an outside authority. Russell also
points out that it is the duty of a teacher to produce in pupils the feeling of tolerance which is
necessary for the survival of democracy. Furthermore, a good teacher, according to Russell, does
not try to conceal the truth; nor does a good teacher allow himself to become a propagandist. All
these ideas and suggestions show Russell to be a great educational reformer. His suggestions are
still needed in the sphere of education not only in other countries but in our own. The teacher in
our country is a man of mercenary motives without any missionary zeal; he is generally a shirker;
he is also an intriguer. For the Indian teacher, therefore, this particular essay should be an eye-
opener.
Russell’s Appeal to Philosophic Readers
One of Russell’s great achievements was to explain philosophical theories and doctrines
for the benefit of laymen having some interest in philosophy. Philosophy and Politics is an essay
in which we find a lucid exposition of the philosophical systems of Plato, Hegel, and Locke. This
is a highly illuminating essay for the layman. It teaches us how political ideas and systems are
derived from philosophical doctrines. For instance, Hegel’s philosophical theory or dialectic led
him to his belief in an obedience to an arbitrary authority and to the view that free speech was an
evil and that war was good. Similarly from the philosophy of empiricism expounded by Locke, the
liberal creed in politics was derived. In this essay, Russell comes to a most valuable conclusion
which is valid for us even today. That conclusion is that empiricist liberalism is the only
philosophy that can be adopted by rational human beings who want mankind to be happy.
The Appeal of Russell’s Prose Style
Finally, the appeal of Russell to the modern reader is due, in no small measure, to the
charm of his prose style. Russell writes in a style which is characterized by lucidity, clarity,
elegance, and a grace of expression. It is a plain, unembellished style which the layman easily
understands, and yet it is a style which abounds in all the literary graces.

“Russell’s prose is characterized by clarity, intellectual brilliance, and

a catholicity of temper.” Discuss with reference to the Unpopular
Essays.
Russell, a Great Prose-stylist
Russell is one of the great prose-stylists of the twentieth century. Although a philosopher,
he does not write in a distorted or obscure manner as most philosophers do. His style is
characterized by intellectual brilliance, clarity and lucidity, a certain frivolity and gaiety, and a
catholicity of temper.
As a matter of fact, the phrase “intellectual brilliance” is itself very wide in its scope, and it
includes most of the other qualities. After all clarity, wit, and catholicity of temper are different
manifestations of intellectual brilliance. Russell is incapable of being dull in his writing just as
he is incapable of being shallow. In the Unpopular Essays he deals with various subjects—
philosophical, political, sociological, psychological, educational, historical, and so on—and his
expositions of all the ideas are illumined by clarity and a grace of expression. His writing exactly
reflects his crystalline, scintillating mind. These essays are, of course, far from being unpopular;
in fact, they have a ready appeal for the average mind, and there can be no doubt at all about
their popularity. One reason for the popularity of these essays is certainly the simplicity and
charm of Russell’s prose-style.
Clarity, Lucidity, Grace and Elegance
The most conspicuous characteristics of this style are clarity, lucidity, grace, and elegance.
Even when Russell is dealing with ideas which are philosophical and technical, he succeeds in
conveying them to the reader by the manner in which he expresses them. He takes great pains to
make ideas clear to the reader, and yet his style is not at all forced or laborious. It is a sign of his
intellectual brilliance that he writes effortlessly and spontaneously in a style that is singularly free
from all kinds of obscurity and ambiguity. Such an effect is achieved by him by means of his
method of logical reasoning and by his habit of offering homely examples to clarify ideas. Every
thesis, every proposition, every theory, every suggestion that he offers in the course of
hisUnpopular Essays is well-argued, well-reasoned, and supported with appropriate examples,
illustrations, and analogies, most of which are drawn from either well-known facts of history or
everyday life,
Ideas, Intelligible and Coherently Presented
The essay, Philosophy and Politics, is not meant for everybody; but it is thoroughly
intelligible to well-educated men who may not have made a special study of philosophy. This essay
is an attack on the philosophy of Hegel with its destructive political implications, and a strong
defence of Locke’s philosophy of empiricism with its liberal political consequences. The argument
in this essay proceeds in a most logical and coherent manner. The ideas are so presented that we
have no difficulty in grasping them. And the essay ends with a conclusion which is really a brief
summing-up of what Russell has said in the course of the essay. His conclusion is that empiricist
liberalism is the only philosophy which can yield the desired results in the world of today. In the
essay, The Superior Virtue of the Oppressed, Russell’s thesis is that writers, and especially
moralists, have a tendency to admire certain sections of the population, which are oppressed, on
the supposed ground that these sections of the population possess certain superior virtues. This
thesis is also developed in a logical manner by means of several examples. In the essay, On Being
Modern-Minded, the central idea is that the modem-minded man tends to fall under the sway of
current opinions and shrinks from independent thinking; one of the consequences of this trend
being that a mentally solitary life seems pointless according to modern standards. This essay,
though slightly difficult as regards its ideas, is yet not perplexing or obscure in any way; all that it
demands is a greater degree of concentration than such essays as An Outline of Intellectual
Rubbish, Ideas That Have Helped Mankind and The Functions of a Teacher. The three last-
named essays are extremely easy, as regards both the ideas and the expression. The same is true of
Ideas That Have Harmed Mankind. In these essays we have a transparency of thought, and a
perfect simplicity of expression. A noteworthy feature of the style in all these essays is a complete
absence of digressions or any other form of superfluity. Russell is never prolix or diffuse, even
when an essay is somewhat long as is An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish. Nor does he create an
impression of copiousness or over-abundance in the matter of expression. Every essay is compact
and well-knit, even when somewhat long.
An Unadorned but Effective Style
Russell’s style is free fromembellishments and ornamental effects. It is a plain, unadorned
style. It is rarely charged even with emotion, being mainly addressed to the intelligence or the
intellect as distinguished from the heart or the feelings. And yet it is not uninteresting, dull,
tedious or monotonous in its effect. As has been indicated above, it is an elegant style with a charm
of its own. Here, for instance, is a specimen of his writing, showing an excellent combination of
lucidity, clarity, and the grace of expression:
 Upon our collective wisdom during the next twenty years depends the question whether
mankind shall be plunged into unparalleled disaster, or shall achieve a new level of
happiness, security, well-being, and intelligence. I do know which mankind will choose.
There is grave reason for fear, but there is enough possibility of a good solution to make
hope not irrational. And it is on this hope that we must act.(Ideas That Have Helped
Mankind)
In these lines an important idea has been expressed in utterly unembellished language which,
however, does not fail to produce the desired effect upon us. Here is another example of this
combination, which is very frequent in Russell’s writing, of simplicity and elegance:
Education, which was at first made universal in order that all might be able to read and
write, has been found capable of serving quite other purposes. By instilling nonsense it
unifies populations and generates collective enthusiasm. If all governments taught the
same nonsense, the harm would not be so great. Unfortunately each has its own brand,
and the diversity serves to produce hostility between the devotees of different creeds. (An
Outline of Intellectual Rubbish)
There are no rhetorical flourishes here, nothing theatrical. A weighty idea finds expression in the
plainest words which do not, however, fail to produce an effect.
Suited to Exposition and Argument
Russell has a style of writing which is admirably suited to exposition and argument. While
reading through these essays, we do not get entangled or enmeshed in the intricacies of thought.
In the essay, The Future of Mankind, Russell visualises three possibilities which are in store for
mankind. And, after discussing them, comes the following irresistible conclusion: “There are now
only two fully independent States,America and Russia. The next step in this long historical
process should reduce the two to one, and thus put an end to the period of organized wars, which
began in Egyptsome six thousand years ago.” In the essay,The Functions of a Teacher, Russell
makes the distinction between a true teacher and a propagandist in a masterly manner. In the
same essay the way in which he explains the meaning of civilization is remarkable for its cogency
and clarity.
Examples and Illustrations
Russell’s intellectual brilliance is also seen in the abundance of examples and illustrations
which he provides in the course of his essays, as also in the wealth of allusions that we find in
them. In order to bring out the difference between the freedom that exists in America and the
absence of it in Russia, he gives us as many as three examples in his essay, The Future of
Mankind. In America one may hold whatever view of Mendelism one may like to hold on the basis
of available evidence; one may write a book debunking Lincoln; one may hold or not hold
that America is heading for an economic slump. In Russiaone can hold only those views which are
officially sponsored. In the essay, An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish, Russell gives us a host of
examples to show how people’s minds have been dominated for centuries by superstitious beliefs.
In the essay, Ideas That Have Helped Mankind, he makes a statement that man is morally a
mixture of good and evil, and then goes on to illustrate this statement with reference to the brutal
treatment of the Jews by the German Nazis, the expulsions of the Germans ordered by the
Russians, and the attitude of the British and the Americans towards German children, all these
being concrete cases to show the evil in man. Russell is never content with abstract statements
and ideas; everywhere we find concrete examples. Sometimes he offers parables or fables to
illustrate his point: for instance, he gives us the fable of the butchers and the bakers, and the fable
of a cow grazing in a field and running away in fright from a passing railway train, (in the
essay Ideas That Have Harmed Mankind)
The Abundance of Condensed Statements and Generalisations
Russell’s intellectual brilliance shows itself also in his capacity for making condensed
statements and generalisations which in most cases produce a striking effect. The following
examples, chosen at random, illustrate this point:

(1) Change is scientific, progress is ethical; change is indubitable, whereas progress is a

matter of controversy. (Philosophy and Politics)

(2) Science is empirical, tentative, and undogmatic; all immutable dogma is

unscientific. (Philosophy and Politics)

(3) Children were idealized by Wordsworth and unidealized by Freud. Marx was the
Wordsworth of the proletariat; its Freud is still to come. (The Superior Virtue of the
Oppressed)

(4) We are suffering not from the decay of theological beliefs but from the loss of
solitude. (On Being Modern-Minded)

(5) Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of cruelty. To
conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom, in the pursuit of truth as in the endeavour after
a worthy manner of life. (An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish)

(6) Fear generates impulses of cruelty, and therefore promotes such superstitious
beliefs as seem to justify cruelty. (An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish)

(7) To the propagandist his pupils are potential soldiers in an army.(The Functions of
a Teacher)

(8) Selfishness beyond a point, whether individual or national, is not wise. It may with
luck succeed, but if it fails failure is terrible.(Ideas That Have Harmed Mankind)
Irony, Wit, and Gaiety
Although Russell has always something serious to say in his essays, yet he is not too grave
or solemn a writer. His essays are interspersed with witty observations and comments. Irony and
sarcasm are often employed by him as weapons of attack. However, his wit is generally dry, though
occasionally also gay. (Wit is gay when an author really seems to enjoy his witty remark, but wit
is dry when the author makes a witty remark somewhat scornfully or with a sense of great
superiority.) We have a striking example of gay wit towards the close of An Outline of Intellectual
Rubbish when he points that out superstitions are often interesting and enjoyable. Once, he says,
he received a communication from the god Osiris, giving his telephone number. He frequently
receives letters from men announcing themselves as the Messiah. During prohibition
in America there was a sect which maintained that the communion service ought to be celebrated
in whisky, not in wine because this belief gave them a legal right to drink some hard liquor. Then
there was the prophetess who duped her followers into believing that she could walk on water.
Another example of gay wit in the same essay occurs when Russell says that Aristotle could have
avoided the mistake of thinking that women had fewer teeth than men, by the simple device of
asking Mrs. Aristotle to keep her mouth open while he counted. Examples of irony and sarcasm
are many. InPhilosophy and Politics, Russell mocks at Hegel by defining Hegel’s “Absolute Idea”
as “pure thought thinking about pure thought”. In The Future of Man, Russell makes the
following ironical observation about Stalin: “Stalin at all times knows the truth about
metaphysics, but you must not suppose that the truth this year is the same as it was last year”.
In The Superior Virtue of the Oppressed viz have plenty of irony; for instance, Russell here pokes
fun at the Freudian theory of the unconscious mind in relation to children.
Catholicity of Temper
Russell is a liberal philosopher. He suffers from no prejudices and no pet aversions. He
has no crotchets or fads. A philosopher who is never tired of preaching a scientific temper of mind
could never be narrow-minded in any sense of the word. His mind was large enough to take in its
sweep all issues pertaining to human welfare. He has expressed his opinions in the Unpopular
Essays on many subjects—politics, economics, psychology, ethics, education, morality, science,
scepticism, communism, civilization, war, peace, world-government, and so on. And he has dealt
with these matters in a style which reflects his catholic temper and his wide-ranging mind. He did
not evolve a style according to any premeditated theory or doctrine. His style came to him
naturally. In his case, as in the cases of other great writers, it can be said with confidence that the
style is the man. His is a style which is rich in such devices as parallelisms, antitheses, contrasts,
similes, metaphors, quotations, allusions, anecdotes, simple words and difficult words, short
sentences and long ones. He attaches no undue importance to any particular ingredient of style,
his only concern being clarity of expression. We cannot use a single formula for this style as we
can, for instance, for Bacon’s style (concise and epigrammatic), for Carlyle’s style (erudite,
cumbersome, and eccentric), or for Ruskin’s style (mellifluous, musical prose). This is a style in
which a perfect synthesis has been achieved between its various ingredients. In its own way, it is
a unique style, even as the man himself was unique.

Examine the ideas expressed by Russell in his essay, Philosophy and

Politics
Philosophical Scepticism and Political Conservatism
In his essay, Philosophy and Politics,Russell’s object is to consider the relationship of
different philosophies to different political systems, and to inquire how far it is a valid
relationship. Most philosophy, says Russell, has been a reaction against scepticism, though there
have been exceptions.
The most notable exceptions were Protagoras in antiquity and Hume in modern times. Both
these men were sceptics, and, as a result of scepticism, were politically conservative. They
believed that nothing should be done to weaken the popular force of tradition. Then there was
Hobbes who, though less sceptical than Hume, was equally convinced that government was not
of divine origin and who advocated the path of extreme conservatism.
Empiricists—DenWritus and Locke
But thorough-going sceptics, such as Protagoras and Hume, have never been influential.
The really powerful opponents against whom Plato in ancient times and Hegel in modern times
had to contend were not sceptics but empiricists. These empiricists were Democritus in ancient
times and Locke in modern times.
Plato’s Political Philosophy: Totalitarianism, and Static Perfection
Plato was of the opinion that all the books of Democritus should be burnt. Democritus was
a materialist, a determinist, a free thinker, a utilitarian who disliked all strong passions, a believer
in evolution both astrbnomical and biological. He was also an ardent democrat. He was of the
view that poverty in a democracy was better than prosperity under despotism. Plato, who opposed
the ideas of Democritus, was a man of totalitarian views as we clearly see from his book,
the Republic. This book is totalitarian in its political teaching and it advocates an ideal of static
perfection. But this ideal of static perfection is now generally believed to be inapplicable to human
affairs. Man is a restless animal, not content with the same state however satisfactory it might be.
Man needs hope and enterprise and change. Among modern philosophers, the ideal of unending
and unchanging happiness has been replaced by that of evolution. Evolution in this sense means
an orderly progress towards a goal which is never quite attained. This change of outlook is part of
the substitution of dynamics for statics which began with Galileo. The concept of dynamics has
affected all modern thinking, whether scientific or political.
The Formulation of a Law of Progress
There is a certain kind of philosopher who believes in a formula of progress and thinks
that the world is becoming gradually more and more to his liking. Such a philosopher first decides
which are the features of the existing world that give him pleasure, and which are the features that
give him pain. He, then, by a careful selection among facts, persuades himself that the universe is
subject to a general law leading to an increase of what he finds pleasant and a decrease of what he
finds unpleasant. Having formulated his law of progress, he next turns on the public and says: “It
is fated that the world must develop as I say”. The man who first fully developed such a point of
view was Hegel.
Hegel’s Philosophy and Its Political Implications
Hegel’s philosophy was so odd that we are surprised how it could have exercised so much
influence upon the minds of a multitude of intellectuals even outsideGermany. Hegel uses the
phrase “the Absolute Idea” to convey his notion of real reality, and his definition of the Absolute
Idea may thus be stated: “The Absolute Idea is pure thought thinking about pure thought”. Indeed,
Hegel sets out his philosophy with so much obscurity that people thought it must be profound
though actually it is absurd. From this absurd philosophy Hegel derives equally absurd political
views. From his philosophy Hegel draws the following inferences: (1) that true liberty consists in
obedience to an arbitrary authority; (2) that free speech is an evil; (3) that absolute monarchy is
good; and (4) that war is good, and an international organization for the peaceful settlement of
disputes would be most undesirable. Hegel arrives at these conclusions through a line of reasoning
which is far from rational.
Hegel’s Influence on Karl Marx
Hegel’s philosophy produced a deep effect on Karl Marx who took over some of Hegel’s
most fanciful tenets. More particularly, Marx took over the belief that history develops according
to a logical plan and is concerned to find ways of avoiding self-contradiction. Thus both Hegel and
Marx advocated an autocratic system, though the kind of autocracy in the two cases is different.
It is only on the basis of unquestioned dogma that an autocratic system can theoretically be
justified; it is only if we accept Hegel’s theory of history that we can justify an autocratic system
such as was advocated by Hegel.
Locke’s Empiricist Philosophy and its Connection with the Liberal Theory of
Politics
Democracy has its theoretical justification in another philosophy altogether; and that
philosophy is empiricism. So far as the modern world is concerned, the founder of the philosophy
of empiricism was John Locke. Locke makes it clear how closely his philosophy is connected with
his views on liberty and toleration, and with his opposition to absolute monarchy. Locke
constantly emphasizes the uncertainty of most of our knowledge. He tries to make us aware of the
possibility that we may be mistaken in the views we hold and that we should therefore freely
discuss our views with men holding different views. His philosophy of empiricism thus leads to
the liberal theory of politics.
The Meaning of Liberalism in Politics
The liberal creed, in practice, is one of “live and let live”, of toleration and freedom, of
moderation and absence of fanaticism in political programmes. Even democracy, when it becomes
fanatical, ceases to be liberal. Democracy became fanatical among the disciples of Rousseau in the
French Revolution, and it became fanatical in Cromwell. The genuine liberal never holds any
belief in a dogmatic manner. The genuine liberal holds his opinions tentatively, and with the
feeling that new evidence may at any moment lead to his rejection of those opinions. This is the
way in which opinions are held in science as opposed to the way in which they are held in theology.
Science is empirical, tentative, undogmatic. If anyone clings to a belief in a dogmatic manner, his
attitude is unscientific. The scientific outlook is thus the intellectual counterpart of what is, in the
practical sphere, the outlook of liberalism.
Agreement through Discussion
As has been indicated above, Locke was the first to develop in detail the empiricist theory
of knowledge. He preached also religious toleration, representative institutions, and the limitation
of governmental power by the system of checks and balances. Few of his doctrines were new, but
he developed them in a weighty manner at just the time when the English government was
prepared to accept them. He stood for order without authority. In the intellectual world it involves
adequate discussion and arriving at a measure of agreement among experts. In the practical world
it involves submission to the majority after all parties have been allowed to state their case. The
modern world is witnessing a conflict of ideologies. It is only through a rational outlook, through
a revival of liberal tentativeness and tolerance, that the world can survive.
The Need of an Undogmatic Attitude in the Political Sphere
The empiricist’s theory of knowledge is half way between dogma and scepticism. Almost
all knowledge, according to this theory, is in some degree doubtful. The modern theory of the
atom has pragmatic truth, because it enables us to manufacture atomic bombs. But it is possible
that quite a different theory may in time be found to give a better explanation of the observed
facts. Scientific theories are accepted as useful hypotheses to suggest further research; they are
never regarded as immutably perfect. In the sphere of practical politics, such an attitude has
important consequences. If we could be certain that all mankind will be happy through the
abolition of private capitalism, it would then be right to pursue this end by means of dictatorships,
concentration camps, and world wars. But if we cannot be sure that mankind will become
permanently happy through the abolition of private capitalism, then there is no justification for
such cruelties as are perpetrated by dictators in concentration camps and through world wars.
Thus an undogmatic and liberal attitude has to be advocated in the political sphere.
The Practical Benefits of Political Liberalism
It is wrong to say that in a war between liberals and fanatics, the fanatics are sure to win.
In every important war since 1700, the more democratic side has been victorious. This is partly
because democracy and empiricism (which are intimately interconnected) do not demand a
distortion of facts in the interests of theory. Also, it is wrong to say that dogmatic beliefs lead to a
greater political and social unity in a country. During World War II, for instance, no country
showed a greater solidarity thanBritain which had a democratic system of government and which
did not rely upon the kind of dogmas preached by the Nazis, the Fascists, and the Marxists.
Empiricism Recommended on Ethical Grounds
Finally, Russell recommends empiricism not only on the ground of its greater truth but
also on ethical grounds. Dogma demands authority, rather than intelligent thought, as the source
of opinion. Dogma requires a prosecution of those who do not accept it. Dogma calls upon its
followers to suppress natural kindness in favour of systematic hatred. Rival dogmas lead to war
because they do not recognize the usefulness of free discussion; and war in our scientific age
means universal death.
Thus, by sustained logical reasoning, Russell arrives at the conclusion that the modern
world needs the philosophy of empiricist liberalism. The modern world is technically unified, but
it is politically divided; and the world will not continue for long if beliefs are not held on the basis
of this philosophy. Russell convincingly exposes the absurdity of Hegel’s philosophy and its
disastrous political consequences. In the light of his exposition of Hegel’s philosophy, we really
wonder how some of the best minds of Europe fell under Hegel’s spell. Similarly, Russell exposes
the absurdity of Plato’s political beliefs which deceived the world for ages. No right-thinking
person can deny the value of empiricism and the liberalism to which it leads in the political sphere.
The gist of Russell’s entire reasoning in this essay is that we should hold our political beliefs
tentatively just as a scientist believes in his theories tentatively. Russell strongly disapproves of a
dogmatic holding of beliefs, and this disapproval is fully justified. The dogmatist has a closed
mind; he would pay no heed to the new evidence which may become available at any time. It is
for this reason that communists are so stubborn and so aggressive. While democracy is tolerant
towards its opponents, communism not only does not tolerate opposition but is always ready to
persecute and liquidate its opponents. Russell shows himself to be a true liberal, a true democrat,
a true lover of freedom, a true humanist. Even his advocacy of democracy is not fanatical; in fact,
he gives us concrete historical examples of the evil consequences of a fanatical advocacy of
democracy. What can be more broad-minded and large-hearted than the attitude of a strong
believer in democracy who yet refuses to offer fanatical support to it ? Philosophy and Politics is
an essay which should have a liberalizing effect on everyone who goes through it; at the same time
it is an essay which greatly adds to our knowledge by revealing to us how political beliefs are
derived from the theories of professional philosophers.

Analyze, and comment on, the ideas expressed by Bertrand Russell in

his essay, The Future of Mankind.
Three Possibilities
Russell believes that, as a result of the next world war, the world will face three
possibilities, one of which will definitely materialize. These three possibilities are: (1) the end of
human life, perhaps of all life on this earth; (2) a reversion to barbarism after a disastrous fall in
the human population of the earth; and (3) the establishment of a single world-government
possessing a complete control over all the principal weapons of war.

The Extinction of the Human Race

The first possibility, according to Russell, may not materialize as a result of the next world
war, unless that war is postponed for a longer time than now seems probable. But if the next world
war is indecisive, and if organized States survive, it, a period of feverish technical development
may begin. With a much greater utilization of atomic energy, it is possible that radio-active clouds,
drifting round the world, may destroy living tissue everywhere. Although the last survivor may
then proclaim himself the emperor of the universe, his reign will be brief and his subjects will all
be rotten dead bodies. This will mean, of course, the end of the human race. Some people may
welcome such a development but this attitude shows only a bogus heroism. The majority of people
would like to think of ways to avoid such a catastrophe.
Too Pessimistic a View
There is nothing fantastic about the possibility which Russell visualizes here, namely the
extinction of the human race. There has recently been a lot of talk about environmental pollution.
Such pollution can assume menacing proportions, if no safety measures are taken in time.
Pollution by the radioactivity generated on a large scale by nuclear research can certainly lead to
the destruction of this world. However, scientists have already become alert to this danger, and
international conferences are being held to take the necessary precautions. Russell’s view about
the extinction of the human race is in any case too pessimistic. This essay was written nearly thirty
years ago, and we have now just twenty years more to complete the twentieth century. It does not
seem likely that the end of the human race will come before the end of the twentieth century
through the spread of radio-activity in the atmosphere.
A Reversion to Barbarism
The second possibility, according to Russell, is a reversion to barbarism as a result of a
scientific world war in which a large majority of human beings will be killed, and only a small
number of people will be left on the earth. All civilization will be destroyed by a scientific world
war, and the few people who survive here and there over the globe will begin life from almost
primitive conditions. A scientific world war will destroy the chief cities and centres of industry; it
will wipe out laboratories and libraries; it will cause famine resulting from radio-active spray and
pestilence resulting from bacteriological warfare. The great States to which we are accustomed
would disintegrate, and the small number of survivors would revert to a primitive village
economy.
A Strong Basis for the Second Possibility
There is nothing absurd or preposterous about the second-possibility also. A scientific
world war is sure to reduce the human population to a small number and to annihilate all the
progress that mankind has achieved through centuries of hard work and effort. In that case, a
reversion to barbarism would be a certainty.
The Third Possibility
The third possibility is the establishment of a single government for the whole world. This
possibility may be realized in different ways: (1) by the victory of the United States in the next
world war; (2) or by the victory of the Soviet Russia; (3) or by means of an agreement among the
nations of the world. If world-government is established through an agreement among the
nations, another world war may be avoided, but a courageous and imaginative statesmanship
would be needed for the purpose.
A World-Government Not Feasible
The third possibility visualized by Russell seems far-fetched, and therefore unrealistic. The
present temper of the different nations of the world shows no signs at all that a world-government
is possible through a general agreement. And, as for the establishment of a world-government
through the victory of either the United States or Soviet Russia in the next world war, that too
seems out of the question for the simple reason that the next world war is sure to destroy the world
altogether.
A World-Government through Agreement Unlikely
Russell next examines some of the arguments that are used against the project of a single
government for the whole world. The commonest argument is that the idea of a world-government
is Utopian and impossible. Russell accepts this argument if it means that the establishment of a
world-government by means of a general agreement is impossible, Russell agrees that the mutual
suspicions between Soviet Russia and the western democracies make any general agreement in
the near future to be futile. Any-universal authority to which both sides can agree under the
existing conditions is bound to prove illusory. Such an authority will prove to be as helpless as the
UNO has proved. Even the modest project of an international control over atomic energy has not
been found feasible in view of Russian objections. Thus a world-government, if it has to be
established, will have to be imposed by force.
The Establishment of a World-Government through War
Russell then mentions another argument against the project of a world-government. It
may be asserted that wars have always been fought and that the human race has survived in spite
of them. It may also be asserted that wars provide an opportunity for heroism and self-sacrifice,
and that people will feel frustrated if there are no wars at all. To this argument Russell replies by
pointing out the much greater destruction caused by modern wars on account of technological
developments. Even if the next world war does not exterminate the human race, it is sure to bring
about a kind of reversion to barbarism which has already been mentioned above. It will then take
a very very long time for what is left of the world to attain any degree of civilization. If things are
allowed to drift, the conflict between Russia and the western democracies will continue till an
atomic war breaks out. In such a war, western Europe, including Great Britain, will be almost
totally destroyed. If the United States and Soviet Russia survive, as organized States, they will
soon afterwards fight again. If one side wins, it will rule the world and a single government of
mankind will come into existence; if not, mankind will perish. If nations of the world and their
rulers give evidence of a constructive vision, they should take steps for the establishment of a
world-government. But Russell feels that a world-government cannot be established by friendly
negotiations. Force, or a threat offeree, Russell thinks, will be necessary for the purpose. If a threat
of force does not suffice, actual force should be employed to establish a world-government, says
Russell. In other words, Russell believes that a world-government should be established through
a world war in which either the United Statesor Soviet Russia will win the victory.
The Beneficial Results of a World-Government
Russell then proceeds to describe the kind of world that will result from the victory won
by the United States or Soviet Russia in the war that they will fight. Whether the United
States wins or Soviet Russia wins, it will be a world in which successful rebellion will be impossible
because the winning side will have a monopoly of the armed forces. The people of the victorious
side will achieve a very high degree of material comfort, and will be freed from the tyranny of fear.
They will become gradually more good-natured, kind-hearted, and less inclined to persecute.
They will, in the course of time, extend the same privileges to the defeated people. There will then
be a true world-state. A world empire of either the United States or Soviet Russia is therefore
preferable to the continuance of the present international anarchy.
A Russian Victory in War, an Appalling Disaster
Russell next gives us his reason why he would prefer a victory for the United States in the
world war which he anticipates. His reason for siding with the United Statesis that there is more
respect in that country than there is in Russia for the things that contribute to a civilized way of
life. What he has in mind is freedom: freedom of thought, freedom of inquiry, freedom of
discussion, and humane feeling. If Soviet Russia wins the victory, all these freedoms would be
crushed; education would be reduced to learning the formulas of communism; opponents and
dissidents will be liquidated or imprisoned; and there will be various other kinds of persecution.
Under such a world-government, science, philosophy, art and literature will be fully controlled by
official authorities and will therefore become narrow. No individual will be allowed to think or
even feel for himself, but each will be a mere unit in the mass. A victory for Russia would, in time,
make such a mentality world-wide. A Russian victory is therefore an appalling disaster.
The Victory of an Alliance of Nations
A victory for the United States would not have such awful consequences. In the first place,
it would not be a victory of theUnited States alone, but of an alliance in which the other members
would insist upon retaining much of their traditional independence. Thus, after such a victory,
there would still be British culture, French culture, Italian culture and so on.
The Freedom Allowed by America
Secondly, America allows considerable individual liberty which is totally absent from
Soviet Russia. In America, a geneticist may hold whatever view of Mendelism he likes to hold on
the basis of the evidence. But in Russia a geneticist must accept the official view. In America a
man may write a book debunking Lincoln. In Russia, if a man writes a book debunking Lenin, the
book would not be published, and the author would be liquidated. In a world controlled by Russia,
intellect must stagnate. Communists despise individual liberty which, however, is important from
the point of view of those who have been brought up under democratic conditions.
Soviet Russiahas established a servile State, with luxury for the few and overworked poverty for
the many. Only democracy and free information can prevent the holders of power from
establishing a servile State.
The Formation of an Alliance against theSoviet Union
Russell then comes to the following conclusion: great wars can only be brought to an end
by the concentration of armed forces under a single authority. Such a concentration cannot be
brought about by agreement, because of the opposition of Soviet Russia, but it must be brought
about somehow. The first step is to persuade theUnited States and Britain of the absolute
necessity for a military unification of the world. The other nations, of the same way of thinking,
can then join this alliance. This alliance should next proceed to establish its supremacy, if
necessary through a war in which the alliance is sure to win.
How to Abolish War
There are now only two fully independent States, America and Russia. These two should
be reduced to one by the establishment of a world-government. Only then can war be abolished.
And if war were abolished, the world would enjoy much greater happiness through the scientific
techniques which are at its disposal. Libertycan exist only if there are effective laws to control
international relations. The first and most difficult step in the creation of such laws is the
establishment of adequate sanctions, and this is possible only through the creation of a single
armed force in control of the whole world. A single armed force can exist only if it is controlled by
a world-government.
Russell’s Unrealistic Approach to the Problem
This is the only essay in which Russell, the great apostle of reason, himself becomes
unreasonable. It seems to be a case of Homer nodding, that is, a man of great intellect showing a
sign of fatigue or negligence in his reasoning. In the first place, it is strange that a confirmed
pacifist should advocate the establishment of a world-government through war. However sublime
the idea! of a world-government, war is not the means to it because, as Russell himself suggests
at the outset in this essay, the next war will mean a reversion of what is left of mankind to a state
of barbarism. Secondly, how does Russell assume that the alliance led by theUnited States is
bound to win the war against Russia and its allies ? And, when this essay was written, China had
not become so powerful as it is today. Nobody can predict what role China might choose for itself.
If, contrary to Russell’s assessment, Russia were to win the war, it would in Russell’s own words
be an “appalling disaster”. No, war is not the right means to achieve the ideal of a world-
government. In fact, this ideal cannot be achieved. We must be more realistic and think of
avoiding wars in the future by deciding to live in harmony in accordance with the principle of “live
and let live”. Co-existence is the only formula for the world today, and the atom bomb, instead of
being allowed to destroy the world, should be treated only as a deterrent to war. The nuclear
deterrent: herein lies our only hope, though that also raises the fear of a continuing arms race
which would become necessary to maintain a parity in the fighting capability of the two sides.
Russell finds rationality sadly lacking in the modern world. What
evidence of this lack does he offer in his essay, An Outline of
intellectual Rubbish, and how far do you agree with him?
The Meaning of Intellectual Rubbish
Although it is often said that man is a rational animal, Russell finds hardly any evidence
of human rationality in the world. Russell finds cruelty, persecution, and superstition increasing
by leaps and bounds; and any one asserting that human beings are rational will have to be dubbed
as an old foggy not aware of the realities. Russell gives us an abundance of concrete examples to
prove his thesis in this essay.
He uses the phrase “intellectual rubbish” to describe all false beliefs, baseless opinions,
superstitions of various kinds, and a general obscurantist attitude. All this intellectual rubbish is
the consequence of an irrational view of things. People follow certain beliefs, ideas, and customs
without inquiring into their validity. In actual fact, many of these beliefs and customs lead to evil
and suffering in the world.
Some Examples of the Irrationality of Priests
Russell begins with an exposure of the irrationality of the priests. The opinions and ideas
propagated by priests are a glaring example of intellectual rubbish. Russell points out that the
past ages, when religious faith dominated the minds of people, were ages of superstition and not
rational beliefs. The priests encouraged people to believe in miracles performed by saints and in
the evil brought about by wizards through the exercise of black magic. Many thousands of people
were burnt at the stake on a charge of practising witchcraft. It was thought that men were
punished by God for their sins through epidemics, famines, earthquakes and floods. Very little
was known scientifically about the world.
The Illogicality and the Contradictions in Religious Beliefs
Nor did the priests become rational when science began to make its discoveries. The
priests fought a losing battle against the advances in astronomy and geology, in anatomy and
physiology, in biology and psychology and sociology. They did their best to prevent the rise of
geology; they fought against Darwin’s theory of evolution, and in recent times they have been
fighting against scientific theories of psychology and education. So superstitious have the priests
been that when the lightning-rod was invented they condemned it as an impious attempt to defeat
the will of God. Priests are so illogical as to treat even the mercies of God as discriminatory. They
still hold a dogmatic conception of sin which appears to be very puzzling to the rational mind.
They believe, for instance, that sexual intercourse is unholy and should be avoided. Extremists in
this case were men like Tolstoy and Mahatma Gandhi, not to speak of the Manichaeans. And there
was a time when priests did not think it sinful for human beings to ill-treat animals, and when
they opposed the dissection of dead bodies for medical purposes as an impious act. Much of
modern morality is still derived from traditional taboos based originally upon superstitions. Then
there, are the logical difficulties in the notion of sin. If God is all-powerful, as the priests say, why
does He not prevent all sinfulness. If everything happens in compliance with God’s wishes, then
Nero’s murder of his mother must also have been committed in accordance with God’s wishes.
Russell’s Criticism of Religious Beliefs Justified
There is no doubt that most of the so-called religious beliefs are merely superstitions, and
Russell is fully justified in pointing out that priests have largely been responsible for the hold of
such superstitions on the minds of people. Even today when we live in the age of science,
superstitions have not completely been dispelled, especially in our own country. In our country,
priests are still all-powerful and people perform all kinds of silly rituals and ceremonies in
compliance with the directives of these priests who are regarded as men of great spiritual power
even when they are most worldly-minded and materialistic. Religion has always served as a means
of the exploitation of the ignorant by priests who are no better in a spiritual sense than the
common people. Even today, when we make an extensive use of the practical appliances that
science has placed at our disposal, we refuse to benefit by scientific ideas; in other words, science
has not yet influenced our thinking, though it has transformed our external life by providing us
with such useful inventions as the railways, aeroplanes, telephones, television, and so on. In the
intellectual and moral sense we are still living in the Middle Ages, and we are still the slaves of
traditional beliefs and practices which have completely lost their meaning in the eyes of any
rational individual. No intelligent man can therefore fail to appreciate the rational scrutiny to
which Russell subjects some of the traditional ideas of the western man, though such a scrutiny is
even more urgently called for in the case of our country.
Some Other Irrational Beliefs and Practices
Russell then proceeds to examine the feeling of self-importance which leads individuals to
hold many wrong beliefs. The glorification of man, which took a new form after the theory of
evolution became an accepted fact, is one example of this feeling of self-importance which an
individual nourishes. People Have begun to believe that evolution has been guided by one great
purpose, namely that, through millions of centuries of the process of evolution, God was preparing
the great climax, Man. Russell finds such a belief to be ridiculous, especially when it is realized
that all life on this planet is temporary and that one day no trace will be left of man who thinks
himself to be greatest product of evolution. The glorification of man, says Russell, receives no
support from a rational, scientific view of the universe. Another source of false belief is the love of
the marvellous. During the Great War of 1914-18, for instance, it was widely believed
in England that British troops had received encouragement and help from the angels of Mons.
Myths of this kind lead to a lot of cruelty. For instance, it was believed for a long time that insanity
was the result of a devil taking possession of a human being. This irrational belief led to the
practice of a very cruel beating being given to a madman with the object of driving away the devil.
Russell’s Sound Approach
Here, again, Russell’s approach is perfectly scientific and sound. It is, indeed, a sobering
thought that no trace will one day be left of human beings on this earth because all life will come
to an end. Man has no reason to feel proud of himself for being the supreme product of the process
of evolution. Besides, Russell points to such cruel specimens of humanity as the tyrants Nero,
Hitler, and Mussolini, who belie the belief that man is supremely noble. The belief in the
supernatural is also absurd, as Russell rightly points out. The beating of a madman with the object
of driving away the evil spirit is still wide-spread in our own country. India indeed “offers a truly
formidable mass of beliefs and customs which can be described as “intellectual rubbish”.
Irrational Theories of Race and Blood
Russell next draws our attention to irrational beliefs about race and blood. The belief in
the superiority of the white man over coloured people is a complete myth, says Russell.
Physiologists have clearly told us that there is no difference between the blood of a Negro and the
blood of a white man. The whole conception of superior races is an irrational belief which has
resulted from the extravagant feeling of self-importance which is nourished by the holders of
power. Equally irrational are the racial theories according to which certain populations
of Europe are superior to others.
The Myth of Racial Superiority Exploded
Here undoubtedly is another convincing example of irrationality. The irrational beliefs
pertaining to race and blood have been very wide-spread over a long period of time in the past.
Today, however, these beliefs find little favour with people. Even Africans nowadays think
themselves the equals of the white people, not to speak of the Indians some of whom have begun
to regard themselves as superior to the white people on the basis of their ancient culture.
Absurd Beliefs about Precious Stones
In the economic sphere, too, says Russell, there are many wide-spread superstitions. There
is, for instance, a belief in the magical properties of gold and precious stones. Nor is there any
doubt that even the most sophisticated people in our own country still believe that particular
precious stones such as the ruby, the sapphire, and the emerald, can bring good luck and
prosperity to those who wear these. In this connection, it is noteworthy that the same kind of
precious stone will not bring prosperity to everybody. A specialist has therefore to be consulted as
to which precious stone will suit a particular individual, and the specialist of course extracts his
own fee.
The Belief about the Inevitability of War
Another irrational belief is that human nature cannot be changed and that, for this reason,
there will always be wars. Russell informs us that it is definitely possible to mould human nature,
and to direct the human mind into constructive channels. For instance, says Russell, it is possible
for a powerful government to educate its people in such a way that they become sane and
reasonable; at the same time, it is equally possible for the same government to give such a wrong
kind of education to its people as to change them into fanatical lunatics. Here, again, Russell
speaks with an authority which cannot be questioned. Modern psychology definitely shows that
the minds of vast populations can be moulded and controlled by the government provided it has
enough military power to prevent any rebellion against the methods which it employs. Once a
population has been moulded in accordance with the aims of the government, it will then
automatically continue to think along the lines laid down by the government, provided no forces
operate to bring about any further change in the minds of the people.
Abnormality and Punishment
There are a number of other irrational beliefs to which Russell draws our attention and
which are the cause of much injustice and cruelty. For instance, it has long been believed that
abnormality or wrong-doing can be remedied through punishment. The irrationality of such a
belief has been proved by modern medical men who have pointed out that punishment only
aggravates the trouble. Punishment may prevent crimes which are sane in origin; but punishment
cannot prevent crimes which result from some psychological abnormality. For instance,
punishment may reform an ordinary thief; but punishment will merely aggravate the thieving
tendency of a kleptomaniac. (A kleptomaniac is a person who, on account of some psychological
abnormality, simply cannot resist the temptation to commit a theft when the opportunity offers
itself. Such a man will commit a theft even when he is not needy.) Thus it was wrong to incorporate
too much severity towards the Germans in the Treaty of Versailles to punish them for their
aggressiveness. The victorious nations should have realized that the Germans were lunatics and
not ordinary criminals in having embarked upon a World war (1914-1918). Russell also mentions
the irrational beliefs about lucky and unlucky days, about unlucky numbers (such as thirteen),
and objections against birth control. Women too have been the subject of irrational beliefs on the
part of men, and vice versa. Generalizations about nation characteristics are yet another example
of irrationality.
The Value of this Essay in Our Practical Life
Russell has given us a multitude of concrete and homely examples of irrational beliefs of
or what he justly calls intellectual rubbish. All irrational beliefs are misleading, and most of them
lead to persecution and cruelty, as Russell has clearly demonstrated. In this essay, Russell does
not offer any metaphysical or philosophical doctrines and theories; all the ideas are such as can
be understood by the ordinary reader, because all these ideas pertain to the daily life of the
ordinary man, though many of the ideas are also applicable to large communities and nations. An
essay such as this is of great value because it can rid many of us from the superstitions and
irrational beliefs which hold a sway upon our minds and which largely determine our actions. If
we follow the simple rules which Russell enunciates towards the close of the essay, we can
certainly make our lives more rational, more fruitful, more humane, and more meaningful.

What, according to Russell, are the functions of a teacher, and what

are the difficulties and hurdles in the way of the teacher’s
performance of these functions? What comments would you offer on
Russell’s views?
Instilling in the Pupils the Habit of Impartial Inquiry
According to Russell, it is the business of a teacher to instil what he can of knowledge and
reasonableness into the process of forming public opinion. Thus Russell assigns a very weighty
role to the teacher. Russell points out that organized party-spirit is one of the greatest dangers of
our time.
This party-spirit takes the form of nationalism and it then leads to wars between nations; the
same party-spirit within a country may lead to a civil war. It is the business of teachers, says
Russell, to stand outside the conflicts between parties and to try to instil into their pupils the
habit of impartial inquiry. A teacher has thus to develop in his pupils a capacity to judge
different issues on their merits. The teacher cautions his pupils against accepting ex
partestatements at their face value. The teacher should not be expected to flatter the prejudices
either of the mob or of officials. His professional virtue should consist in a readiness to do
justice to all sides. He should try to rise above controversy into a region of impartial scientific
investigation. He should not lend himself to dishonest propaganda by spreading untruths.
Society should protect the teacher against the resentment of those who feel offended by the
conclusions which a teacher arrives at through his independent investigation.
Political Partisanship of Teachers in our Country
Nobody can quarrel with Russell in the matter of responsibility which he entrusts to the
teacher. What can be more sensible than the advice that the teacher should stand outside the strife
of parties and should exercise his own independent judgment and also teach his pupils to develop
in themselves a capacity for impartial inquiry? This advice is the urgent need of the hour in our
own country. One of our great misfortunes in the sphere of education is that almost every teacher
is a member of some political party or other. Even students nowadays fight their elections on the
basis of their party affiliations. Both teachers and students are thus party spokesmen. If the views
of some of the teachers and the views some of the students in the same institution are divergent
in political matters, there is bound to be friction and bitterness between them. The freedom of
education is thus being vitiated in our country on account of the political partisanship of both
teachers and students. The habit of impartial inquiry is something completely alien to the minds
of teachers in our country today.
Teachers, the Guardians of Civilization
Russell assigns to the teachers an even greater responsibility when he says that they, more
than members of any other class of people, are the guardians of civilization. Teachers should be
intimately aware of what civilization is, and they should feel a strong desire to impart a civilized
attitude to their pupils. The civilized man is one who either admires what is good and noble or
aims at understanding what he cannot admire. The civilized man seeks rather to discover and
remove the impersonal causes of evil than to hate the men who are in the grip of that evil. The
teacher should have all this in his mind, and he should be able to convey it to the young pupils
under his charge.
Deficiencies in Our Teachers
To say that teachers are, more than any other class, the guardians of civilization is to give
them a higher status than is enjoyed by those who occupy positions of high official authority in a
country, and even than those who control the press and other mass media. This, again, is an ideal
very remote from the thoughts of the teachers in our own country. Our teachers should first of all
themselves learn the meaning of civilization. Often their own behaviour and their dealings not
only with students but also with one another are of a dubious nature. Most of the teachers in our
country do not even have a sense of discipline which is an essential ingredient of civilization.
Besides, most teachers here have a narrow outlook upon life; many of them suffer from communal
bias or class bias or caste bias. A civilized mind is broad and catholic, not limited and short-
sighted.
The Teacher and the Pursuit of Happiness
It is also the business of the teacher, says Russell, to open the minds of his pupils to the
possibility of activities which can be a source of both pleasure and profit. In other words, the
teacher should instil among his pupils the desire to pursue delightful activities. He should also
check the growth of a desire in the minds of his pupils to rob others of any kind of happiness which
they themselves have missed. Many people are opposed to the pursuit of happiness as an end.
Actually, happiness is one of the most desirable goals in life. Pupils should be taught to pursue
happiness for themselves and to provide happiness to others. It should be the aim of the educator,
says Russell, to train adults free from psychological aberrations so that they may not have any
wish to rob others of whatever happiness may be available to them.
Happiness, a Laudable Goal
Here again we agree with Russell. The ideal of happiness is certainly laudable. Happiness
is one of the most cherished values in human life. Such obnoxious feelings as the desire to inflict
pain upon oneself or upon others must be curbed and controlled, because such feelings do
certainly exist in many people. We have all heard of “sadism” which consists in inflicting pain
upon others and of “masochism” which consists in inflicting pain upon oneself. It is the function
of a teacher to prevent the growth of such feelings in his pupils.
The Teacher Versus the Propagandist
A teacher, says Russell, can be successful in his work only if he has feelings of warm
affection towards his pupils and a genuine desire to impart to them what he himself believes to be
valuable. Russell distinguishes the true teacher from the propagandist. To the propagandist his
pupils are potential soldiers in an army. They are to serve purposes that lie outside their own lives.
The true teacher wants that his pupils should survey the world and freely choose a purpose which
appears to them of value. But the propagandist tries to train and twist the growth of his pupils to
suit his particular purpose. The propagandist thus thwarts their natural growth and in this way
may even destroy their generous instincts, replacing them with envy, destructiveness, and cruelty.
The true teacher knows that there is no need for men to be cruel; he, therefore, encourages the
development of kind and humane feelings among his pupils.
A Valid Distinction
In thus distinguishing between the true teacher and the propagandist, Russell shows his
humanitarianism and his moral fervour. The true teacher is, indeed, an upholder of the ideal of
mutual sympathy, mutual help, and mutual service. The propagandist is always a dogmatist; his
mind is one-sided. For the true teacher, a sense of humanity overrides all other considerations,
and his outlook is all-embracing. This distinction between the true teacher and the propagandist
is thus a vital matter in any discussion of the aims of education.
The Teacher’s Duty not to Conceal the Truth, and his Duty to Produce the Spirit of
Tolerance
Another requirement of a good teacher, according to Russell, is that he must never conceal
the truth. There is no virtue in hiding even unpleasant facts from the pupils. The wickedness of
rogues should, for instance, not be hidden from young students. It is said that the knowledge of
such unpleasant facts may lead to young minds becoming cynical, But if such knowledge comes
to the pupils, duly intermixed with a knowledge of what is good, and if it comes to them gradually,
it will have no such effect. In any case, to tell lies to the young is morally indefensible.
Furthermore, a teacher should try to produce in his pupils the spirit of tolerance. This spirit of
tolerance is necessary if democracy is to survive. And the spirit of tolerance can be developed
through an understanding of those who hold views different from our own. Ants and savages put
strangers to death; but civilized men try to understand the point of view of those who differ with
them; they do not try to strangle those who differ with them. The intolerance which results from
the failure to understand other points of view than our own is the very opposite of a civilized
outlook, and it is one of the most serious dangers to our world. The educational system should be
designed to remove intolerance of this kind.
Russell’s Moralism and his Internationalism
Here we see Russell in the role of a moralist; he has something very ennobling and edifying
to say. It is clear that the welfare or well-being of mankind is the most cherished ideal Russell has
in mind. And it is the well-being of the world as a whole that he seeks, not of any particular part
or region of it. He is a true internationalist, and is free from narrow nationalistic loyalties. He is
also an admirer of democracy. Both these aims which a teacher should have in his mind-namely,
the non-concealment of truth, and encouraging the spirit of tolerance—are highly commendable;
and we feel that all teachers everywhere should accept these aims and strive to give them a
practical shape.
Difficulties and Hurdles in the Way of Teachers: The Denial of Freedom to the
Teacher a Great Hurdle
In Russell’s opinion a teacher’s path is nowadays beset with many difficulties and hurdles.
The profession of teaching has a great and honourable tradition, but any teacher in the modern
world is likely to be made sharply aware that his function is to teach not what he thinks he should
teach, but to instil such beliefs and prejudices as are thought useful by his employers. The
conditions in the modern world thus make it difficult for the teacher to perform his real functions.
What the teacher needs more than anything else is the feeling of intellectual independence. But
what has happened is that the teacher has become, in a large majority of cases, a civil servant
compelled to carry out the instructions of the bureaucracy. Russell recognizes the fact that State
education is necessary. But he thinks that there should be certain safeguards against the dangers
which result from State education. These dangers were seen in their full magnitude in Nazi
Germany and are still seen in Russia. In such countries, State education aims at instilling a
dogmatic creed among the pupils. Now, people of a free intelligence will never sincerely accept a
dogmatic creed. But in the countries named above, State education has led to the production of
fanatical bigots, ignorant of the world outside their own country. These bigots have no notion of
a free discussion of ideas. What is even more deplorable is that almost every totalitarian country
has its own dogmatic creed to preach. This kind of thing leads to a cultural compartmentalism. As
a result of the diversity of dogmatic creeds, the ideal of cultural internationalism has rapidly been
declining since the First World War. Even in democratic countries like England and theU.S.A.,
ideas of nationalism have begun to exercise a stronger hold upon the minds of people. The dangers
resulting from such attitudes can be averted if teachers are protected from intellectual bondage.
Dogmatism in education has at any rate to be prevented somehow. It is wrong to say that the
uniformity of opinion and the suppression of liberty can make a nation strong. It is also wrong to
say that democracy weakens a country in war. The truth is that in every important war since the
year 1700, the victory has gone to the more democratic side. Under these circumstances, the
teacher should be allowed the freedom to teach what he wants to teach and in the manner he likes.
The teacher can only perform his work adequately if he is an individual directed by an inner
creative impulse, not dominated and fettered by an outside authority. In this respect, the teacher
is like the artist, the philosopher, and the man of letters. The denial of freedom to the teacher
therefore means the negation of education.
Full Freedom for the Teacher in Our Own Country
We fully agree with Russell that the teacher can work satisfactorily only in an atmosphere
of freedom. Nor is there any doubt that this atmosphere of freedom is totally wanting in
totalitarian countries dominated by communism. In democratic countries, the teacher is
independent enough. And in our own country, there are hardly any restrictions of any kind upon
the teacher. Neither the central government nor the State governments in this country enforce
any particular form of teaching; nor do they insist upon any particular political ideology being
taught except, perhaps, in a small number of institutions which are under the control of particular
sects or communities.
Russell also points out, in connection with the freedom needful for the teacher, that in
most countries certain opinions are recognized as “correct”, and others as dangerous. Teachers
whose opinions are not “correct” have to keep silent about them. The result is that the inquiring
young too often have to go outside the class-room to discover what is being taught by the most
vigorous minds of their own time. In Russell’s opinion there has to be a great deal more freedom
than there is for the teaching profession. This profession should have more opportunities of self-
determination, and more independence from the interference of bureaucrats and bigots.
The Complaint of Over-work Not Valid in the Case of Our Teachers
One other difficulty that Russell points out as obstructing the teacher’s performance is
overwork. Most teachers, says Russell, are subjected to excessive work and are compelled to
prepare their pupils for examinations rather than to give them a liberalizing mental training. The
result is that many of them become harassed and nervous, and they get out of touch with recent
work in the subjects that they teach. This complaint about overwork may be true in the case of
teachers in Soviet Russia and even in some of the western democracies; but it is certainly not true
in our own country. Here the school teacher gets ample time from his official duties to organize
private coaching classes in order to add to his income while the college teacher gets ample time to
indulge in institutional politics and in other objectionable activities. The teacher in India is
completely devoid of that missionary spirit which is essential for the noble activity of educating
the young. Of course, there are honourable exceptions but the majority of teachers are dominated
by mercenary motives. The teachers in Indiacan certainly not complain of a lack of leisure.
A Very Instructive and Illuminating Essay
Russell’s views on the subject of education as stated in the essay, The Functions of a
Teacher, are very instructive and illuminating. Although this essay was written nearly thirty years
ago, its ideas have not lost their validity and value, at least for this country. If even five per cent of
the teachers in India were to adopt the ideals proposed by Russell in this essay, the educational
system will undergo a transformation the effects of which will be far-reaching. The majority of
teachers will of course scoff at these ideas, but the earnest-minded ones can draw plenty of
inspiration from them.

Attempt a critical examination of Russell’s essay, Ideas That Have

Helped Mankind.
An Impressive Array of Ideas
In the essay under consideration, Russell presents us with an impressive array of ideas
which have helped mankind. He first mentions very briefly the ideas that helped mankind during
pre-historic times, and then goes on to consider at some length the ideas which have helped
mankind during historic times.
Helpful Ideas During Pre-historic Times
During pre-historic times, the main ideas which helped mankind were the invention of
language, the utilization of fire, the taming of animals for domestic purposes,, the invention of
agriculture, and the invention of the art of writing. These were surely some of the most striking
features of the progress of mankind during pre-historic times, and Russell has summed up all
these in only a couple of pages in his inimitable lucid style.
Two Kinds of Ideas
Russell then proceeds to consider the progress achieved by mankind during historic times.
He divides ideas into two kinds: those that have contributed knowledge and technique, and those
that have been concerned with morals and politics.
Mathematics and Astronomy
The study of mathematics and astronomy began in Babylonia in times of antiquity.
Subsequently, the Greeks contributed a good deal to the advancement of these branches of
knowledge. One of the greatest Greek mathematicians was Archimedes, and one of the most
famous astronomers was Aristarchus of Samos who is said to have evolved the complete
Copernican hypothesis which, however, was rejected by those who followed him. The Greeks
acquired the habit of expressing natural laws in mathematical terms.
Helpful Ideas Contributed by 17th-century Scientists
Amazing advances were made in the study of natural laws during the seventeenth century.
The most important names in this connection are those of Galileo, Descartes,Newton, and
Leibniz. Modern technique in industry and war, with the sole exception of the atomic bomb, is
still wholly based upon a type of dynamics developed out of the principles of Galileo and Newton.
Galileo unified the principles governing the earth and the heavens by his single law of inertia
according to which a body, once in motion, will not stop of itself but will move with a constant
velocity in a straight line whether it is on earth or in one of the celestial spheres. From the
seventeenth century onwards, it has also become increasingly clear that, in order to understand
natural laws, we must get rid of every kind of ethical and aesthetic bias. Every kind of bias had to
be discarded by seventeenth-century astronomy. The Copernican system showed that the earth
was not the centre of the universe and that perhaps man was not the supreme purpose of the
Creator.
Geology and the Theory of Evolution
It was geology and Darwin’s theory of evolution that dealt a real blow to the orthodox
religious beliefs of scientists and the common people. One of the grand conceptions which were
found to be scientifically useless was the soul. Scientists have found that the soul, if at all it exists,
plays no part in any discoverable causal law.
Russell’s Lucid Exposition of Certain Valuable Ideas
The advances made by scientists have been stated by Russell in a manner that is easily
intelligible even to the layman. The account of these advances has been given by Russell in a very
compact and close-knit form. One of the most valuable ideas to which he draws our attention in
this account is the need to shed every kind of ethical and aesthetic bias in case we want to
understand natural laws. It is, however, a misfortune that mankind continues to be in the grip of
all kinds of ethical and aesthetic bias, the only persons free from such bias being the scientists
themselves or those genuinely influenced by scientific ideas. It is a strange contradiction that,
while mankind makes use of scientific inventions and scientific knowledge in the course of their
daily practical lives, human thinking is largely governed by various kinds of bias. But for different
kinds of bias, mankind would manage its affairs in a rational manner and achieve a fair degree of
happiness. But, as human beings are largely guided by bias, there is persecution, cruelty, and
avoidable suffering in this world. Even world wars are a direct outcome of certain kinds of bias.
Again, a large majority of people continue to cling to their orthodox religious beliefs which are
nothing but superstitions. Even the belief in the existence of the soul continues, and we continue
to perform all kinds of rituals and ceremonies for the peace of the souls of our dear departed ones.
Another valuable idea that Russell gives us here is the capacity of governments to make use of the
science of human behaviour in order to produce a population of sane and intelligent people. But,
as Russell says, such a result can be achieved only if there is an international government
possessing a monopoly of armed force.
Russell’s Sound Approach
Then there are ideas in the second group, namely, moral and political ideas as
distinguished from technical ideas. Scientific or technical progress without a corresponding moral
and political progress, says Russell, may only increase the magnitude of the disaster that a misuse
of skill may bring about. For instance, political narrow-mindedness, such as we witness in the
quarrel between the Jews and the Muslims for the control of Palestine, may lead to a world war
in which atomic weapons will be used and which therefore might destroy the entire world. The
warning that Russell here sounds is perfectly justified. Mankind has made enormous progress so
far as knowledge and technique are concerned, but in the field of morality, and especially in the
field of political morality, mankind is still very backward. There is absolutely no feeling in any
section of the world-population of the oneness of mankind; there are divisions and there are
diverse communities and groups, each thinking itself to be more important than the others. Never
were narrow ideas of nationalism so rampant and powerful as they are today. The world offers the
spectacle of a house divided against itself. The goal of a world-government is as remote from the
minds of people as the most distant planets in the solar system. If mankind, is to survive, it must
devote some attention to moral and political progress.
The Concept of the Brotherhood of Man
Among the ideas that have helped mankind in the moral sphere is the concept of the
brotherthood of man. This concept owed its first force to certain political developments, and it
was invented by the Stoics. Subsequently, this concept was strengthened by Buddhism and
Christianity. Christianity did much to mitigate the sufferings of the slaves; it established charity
on a large scale and set up hospitals. However, a large number of Christians have failed to live up
to the ideals that are advocated by their religion.
The Practical Value of this Concept
We agree with Russell that the concept of the brotherhood of man is one of the cardinal
ideas which have helped the moral progress of mankind. Although almost every nation of the
world regards itself as a separate entity suspicious of other nations, yet this concept does have a
hold upon the minds of some people in the world. No ideal can be held by this world on a universal
scale, because of the wide diversity that prevails. Still this particular concept has always played a
vital and valuable role in human affairs. This concept has not been able to prevent world wars or
even limited conflicts; yet it has proved to be of great service in diminishing human brutality.
Liberty and Democracy, also Among Ideas that Have Helped Mankind
The ideas of liberty, equality, and fraternity have also proved very helpful to mankind.
These ideas had religious origins. The idea of individual liberty, for instance, entered practical
politics in the form of religious toleration. One of the greatest theoretical advocates of liberty was
the seventeenth century philosopher, John Locke, who tried to reconcile the maximum of
individual liberty with the minimum of governmental control. Other great ideas in the political
sphere have been those of law and government. Of these two, government is the more
fundamental. Government may be defined as the collective force of a community, a force which is
able to control individual citizens and to resist pressure from foreign States. The control of a
government over private citizens is always greater when there is war or the danger of war than
when peace seems secure. Governments always try to increase their power at the cost of citizens.
Previously this political power was misused by autocratic kings, and in our times this power is
misused by totalitarian States (like Russiaand China). Democracy is a form of government which
aims at reducing the misuse of political power by the government to the minimum. In a democracy
a government can continue only if the people so desire. Besides, in a democracy no man can be
punished except by due process of law. Furthermore, democracy allows freedom of speech,
freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. A democracy is altogether different from .what is
known as a police State where the government controls the individual citizen fully and completely
without permitting him any freedom.
Russell’s Progressive Views about Government
In his discussion of the concepts of liberty and democracy, again, Russell adopts an
approach with which no right-thinking person can quarrel. Of course, hard-boiled communists
will never accept Russell’s thesis about the value of freedom and democracy; such persons are
fanatical believers in totalitarianism or in vesting the State with unlimited power to control the
actions and thoughts of its people. Nor can we deny that even in totalitarian countries great
scientific progress is possible. The first artificial satellite of the earth was, after all, shot into space
by the Russians and, even as regards destructive weapons, the Russian armoury is as formidable
as the American. But what the human spirit vainly yearns for in a totalitarian state is the freedom
to think what one pleases, to talk what one pleases, and to like or dislike things according to one’s
own inclinations. The freedom which democracy offers is one of the greatest blessings that the
human spirit has always longed for; this kind of freedom is essential for the well-being and
happiness of mankind no matter what the believers in the opposite system of government may
assert. In this connection, Russell rightly points out that Stalin could never understand why
Churchill allowed himself to be deprived of his prime ministership just because his party had
failed to win the majority of seats in parliament in the general election. A mind accustomed to
think along totalitarian lines will never understand the value of democracy.
The Idea of a World-government
Finally, Russell offers us an idea which, according to mm, can greatly help mankind in the
future. This is the idea of an international government, that is, a single government for the entire
world. The future of mankind would, according to Russell, be very dark in case a world-
government is not established. The world of today, says Russell, faces a new crisis. In this new
crisis we are faced with two alternatives: either man must again go back to primitive conditions
as a result of the destruction of civilization by a world war, or human beings must agree to the
establishment of an international government. If an international government of some kind is
established, a new era of progress, happiness, and well-being will begin for mankind. There are at
present only two States which are truly independent in the world; and they are United States and
the Soviet Union. All that is needed, to save mankind from complete destruction by a world war,
is the step from two independent States to one, and this should be achieved by mutual agreement.
World-Government Not Feasible
This idea of an international government is certainly valuable, but it is wholly impractical.
Divided as the world is into one hundred and fifty odd nations, each sovereign and each proud of
its own entity, the establishment of a world-government acceptable to all is entirely out of the
question. Even if we were to limit our attention to the two super powers, neither of them would
agree to merge with the other. Besides, the danger of a world war has greatly receded since the
time when this essay was written. Russell thought that within twenty or thirty years, the world
would either destroy itself or save itself by the establishment of a world-government. Neither of
those two possibilities has materialized. We are still having world peace and we shall continue to
have it without the establishment of a world-government. Peace will continue because of a full
realization by all the parties concerned that the next world war would completely destroy the
world. The world will be saved by the instinct for self-preservation and not by the establishment
of a world-government which will remain a dream. If nuclear weapons can destroy the world, they
can also serve as a deterrent against war.

“Since my subject is ideas that have harmed mankind, it is especially

harmful systems of beliefs that I shall consider.” How does Russell
elaborate this statement and how far do you agree with him?
False Religious Beliefs and Political Dogmas
Among the ideas that have harmed mankind, Russell first of all mentions a number of
superstitions connected with religion. It was supposed, for instance, that human sacrifice could
improve the crops. Then there was the religious belief that conquered races should completely be
exterminated and that even their cattle and sheep should not be spared. There was also the
superstitious belief held by Christian saints that the pagans and heretics would be subjected to
eternal tortures after death.
As a consequence of this belief, the saints abstained from all the pleasures of the senses and
found satisfaction in the thought that those who did not have the same religious faith as they
would have to undergo indescribable tortures in hell. In modem times, this particular Christian
dogma took a political shape. Both the German Nazis and the Russian communists demanded
hard work and self-sacrifice from their followers on the ground that those who did not comply
with their political creed would either be liquidated or put in concentration camps. Thus these
political dogmas, based on a false belief, led to considerable persecution and suffering.
Communists have the same outlook as characterized the Calvinists who believed that they would
go to heaven and that sinners would receive a severe punishment in hell.
The Belief in Witchcraft
Another false notion that has greatly harmed mankind is the importance which each
individual attaches to himself. Most of us believe that our own good or evil fortune is due to the
deliberate actions of other people. We invent all sorts of myths to explain our misfortunes without
sacrificing our self-importance. It was this state of mind that gave rise to the belief in witchcraft
and black magic. The Inquisition punished not only witches but those who did not believe in the
possibility of witchcraft, since to disbelieve it was heresy.
The Soundness of Russell’s Analysis of Religious Beliefs
In drawing our attention to the various harmful ideas originating from religion, Russell is
on sure ground. There is no doubt that religious beliefs which are in reality mere superstitions
have caused tremendous suffering in the world. Russell gives us concrete historic examples to
illustrate this point. The attitude of the Christian saints towards pagans and heretics, as described
by Russell, is historically authentic; and he quotes the Bible to show that the punishment given to
those people who did not believe in punishing the supposed witches was justified by the Bible
which says: “Thou shall not suffer a witch to live”. The cruelties inflicted upon the witches by the
Inquisition are also historically true. In modern times, says Russell, these same emotions find an
outlet in a fear of foreign nations. The example of grazing cows running away in terror at the
approach of a railway train is given by Russell to show how people create myths to explain their
misfortunes. Russell also quotes a couple of lines from Milton’sParadise Lost to illustrate the
pleasures which Satan experienced on contemplating the harm that he could do to man. Thus in
each case Russell has supplied undeniable evidence to prove his point. His reasoning therefore is
thoroughly convincing. At the same time, there is nothing to startle us in this line of reasoning.
The enlightened ones among us are already aware that scientific discoveries have dispelled many
superstitious beliefs connected with religion. If a large majority even of civilized people continue
to hold superstitious beliefs, it only shows their unwillingness to be enlightened. In our own
country, for instance, numberless religious superstitions still continue to dominate the minds of
people and to determine their actions.
Envy and Economic Nationalism
Russell next tells us that one of the most powerful sources of false belief is envy. The
jealousies of women are proverbial, but similar jealousies prevail among males also, especially in
their official circles. Envy becomes dangerous when it dominates the attitudes of nations towards
one another. Envy may cause a complete misconception of economic self-interest. The whole
philosophy of economic nationalism, which is now universal throughout the world, is based upon
the false belief that the economic interest of one nation is surely opposed to that of another. This
false belief produces international hatreds and rivalries and thus leads to war.
Russell’s Psychological Approach
In this particular case, Russell adopts a psychological approach. He traces the origin of a
world war to the deep-rooted feeling of envy in the human heart. He focuses our attention on the
psychological causes behind economic nationalism and war. And in this case, again, he illustrates
his ideas by means of a parallel about butchers and bakers. The feeling of envy made these
butchers and bakers concentrate their attention upon competitors and forget altogether the aspect
of their prosperity that depended upon customers. Russell is also right in pointing out that in large
offices we shall find exactly the same kind of jealousies among male officials which we generally
attribute to women.
False and Harmful Beliefs Arising from the Passion of Pride
Pride is another passion which gives rise to false beliefs that are politically harmful. We
have the pride of nationality, the pride of race, the pride of sex, the pride of class, and the pride of
creed. All these kinds of pride are dangerous. For a long time the English people were brought up
to believe in the inhertent superiority of their nation over the French. They were taught that one
Englishman could defeat three Frenchmen. A similar feeling of superiority is cherished by people
of other countries in relation to one another. The pride of race, says Russell, is even more harmful
than national pride. People of white races regard themselves as superior to people of the coloured
races. The Jews had, in ancient times, a peculiar belief in their own racial superiority.
Subsequently the Christians have been holding an equally irrational belief in their superiority to
Jews. Beliefs of this kind do infinite harm, and it should be one of the aims of education to
eradicate them. Another form that the feeling of pride takes is the belief in the minds of men that
they are superior to women. Men have claimed to be more reasonable than women, more
inventive, less swayed by their emotions, and so on. But each of these arguments in turn was
proved to be false, but it always gave place to a similar other argument. This tendency of the male
sex to dominate over women has had some very unfortunate effects on the marriage-relationship.
As a consequence of this male domination, husbands treated their wives as slaves, regarding
themselves as the masters. The pride of class persists even in Americawhere; in theory, all men
are equal. So long as great inequalities of wealth continue, the pride of class will continue also.
In England, where the inequalities of wealth are less glaring, another kind of snobbery has
emerged, so that the pride of class is to be found in that country also. Finally, there is the pride of
creed. Throughout the Middle Ages, Christians and Muslims were entirely convinced of each
other’s wickedness and never doubted their own superiority. This form of pride has not
disappeared even today. All these different kinds of pride, says Russell, make people feel “grand”.
In order to be happy, people require all kinds of support for their self-esteem and self-importance.
The Americans feel happy because they are proud of belonging toAmerica which they regard as
God’s own country. White people are happy because they are proud of their white skins which
show that they are superior to the black races. Protestants feel happy because they are proud of
their Protestant religion which is superior to the Catholic religion. Men are happy because they
are proud of belonging to the male sex which is superior to the female sex. Likewise, the people of
the east feel themselves to be superior to the people of the west, and vice versa. But all these beliefs
are, in reality, irrational, false, misleading; and they all cause a good deal of mischief in the world.
Russell’s Analysis of Pride Perfectly Convincing
Russell’s analysis of the passion of pride also has a sound psychological basis. Pride is
something inherent in every human being. Pride takes various forms, each of which has been
illustrated by Russell with concrete examples. There may or may not be any justification for the
feeling of superiority which various kinds of people entertain by comparison with others, but there
can be no doubt at all that such feelings of superiority do exist. If there is no other ground for our
superiority, we find pleasure in the thought that, as human beings, we are superior to all other
forms of life on this earth. Almost everybody needs some prop to his ego. A feeling of superiority
is universal in this world. It is natural also that people possessing feelings of superiority should
clash with, and try to inflict damage or loss upon, those who do not accept their claim to
superiority. However, it may be pointed out that this feeling of superiority arising from pride can
never be eradicated from the human breast. A complete sense of equality can never be enforced
among human beings. If all other feelings of superiority are done away with, the superiority of the
strong man over the weak, and the superiority of the more intelligent man over the less intelligent
one will always persist. There is such a thing as natural inequality which means a natural
superiority and a natural inferiority. We may succeed in doing away with inequalities of wealth
and income, but there will always be the superiority, to take only one example, of the more
attractive female figure to the less attractive one or to a repulsive one.
The False Belief that One is God’s Special Agent or Instrument
Another harmful idea that Russell considers in this essay is that of imagining oneself to be
a special instrument of the divine will. It often happens that men and nations delude themselves
into thinking that they are the special agents designed by God to carry out His purposes. For
instance, the Muslims have a fanatical belief that every soldier dying in battle for his religious
faith would go straight to paradise where he will be entertained by beautiful houris. Cromwell
believed himself to be the divinely appointed instrument of justice for suppressing Catholics. In
our times, the Marxists think that they are the divinely appointed instruments for ensuring
economic justice by liquidating the capitalists and all those who disagree with the communist
ideology. Hegel had taught that the “dialectic” had given supremacy toGermany. Marx did not
accept Hegel’s view and claimed that the supremacy belonged not to Germany but to the
proletariat. The Marxists think themselves to be justified in the path of ruthless cruelty which they
practise for the implementation and enforcement of their political and economic creed. And
Russell concludes this part of the argument by saying: “Most of the greatest evils that man has
inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in
fact, was false”.
Russell, an Opponent of Dogmatism
Here Russell shows himself to be a strong opponent of dogmatism. What he really attacks
here is the stubborn, dogmatic beliefs of various kinds of people. In attacking various systems of
dogmatism, Russell gives evidence of his gifts of irony and satire. He ridicules those who consider
themselves either the chosen people of God or the divinely appointed instruments of God’s will.
He especially exposes the falseness of the claims of the Marxists. Russell appears here to be a man
of liberal ideas; he is not wedded to any creed, and he is not fanatical about any belief, Russell is
not fanatical even in his advocacy of democracy which he really admires as a form of government.
For instance, he clearly says, towards the end of this essay, that the democrat does not necessarily
believe that democracy is the best system always and everywhere. There are many nations, Russell
rightly points out, which lack the moral qualities and the political experience necessary for the
success of parliamentary institutions. Russell also shows his liberalism by suggesting that only an
international government can prevent world wars. He is not a believer in narrow ideas of
nationalism; he genuinely believes that only a world-government can save the human race from
extinction or from being thrown back into a state of barbarism.

Write a note on Russell’s use of irony in his Unpopular Essays.

The Meaning of Irony
Irony always arises from a contrast. It generally implies a contrast between the obvious or
surface meaning of a statement and the real or the intended meaning of it. It may also imply a
contrast between the incomplete, limited, or inaccurate knowledge of people and the writer’s
fuller, wider, and more exact knowledge of the facts. Irony is one of the principal sources of
humour.
It is one of the most effective weapons of satire. Satire generally aims at ridiculing persons or
institutions or customs or modes of thought, and it often employes irony as its tool. The great
satirists have always been masters in the use of irony. Such were Chaucer, Samuel Butler, (the
author ofHudibras), Dryden, Alexander Pope, and Swift. In modern times, Aldous Huxley and
Bertrand Russell are among the great writers to make use of irony as a weapon of attack.
Russell’s Use of Irony and Its Purpose
The Unpopular Essays show Russell’s use of irony to a striking degree. Russell too
employs irony to expose the absurdity or stupidity of certain ideas, beliefs, customs, and
institutions. His irony is free from malice, spite and spleen. His irony is not prompted by ill-will
or cynicism. Nor does he become furious or indignant in his unmasking of the follies and
absurdities in people’s thinking. His purpose is improvement and reform; he aims at correcting
wrong modes of thought, and teaching people to become rational in their thinking and in taking
decisions in the course of their political and social life.
The Use of Irony in “Philosophy and Politics”
Russell is a serious writer; he has always something important and weighty to say. The use
of irony, apart from serving as a weapon of attack in his hands, serves also to lighten the gravity
of the tone of his writing. For instance, in the essay Philosophy and Politics we feel greatly amused
when Russell ironically points out the absurdity of Hegel’s philosophy by reducing Hegel’s
definition of the Absolute Idea to the statement that it is “pure thought thinking about pure
thought”. Russell mocks at this philosophy by further pointing out what the general reaction of
people to it would be. People, says Russell, would not think it worth their while to go through all
the verbiage of Hegel and, after reading it, they would “say good-bye to philosophy and live happy
ever after”. In the same essay, Russell ironically says that people who oppose the philosopher are
condemned as unphilosophic, and those who agree with him feel assured of victory, since the
universe is on their side. And Russell here ironically adds: “At the same time the winning side, for
reasons which remain somewhat obscure is represented as the side of virtue”. In the course of the
same essay, Russell quotes an ancient Greek writer who said that every beast was driven to the
pasture with blows, and then makes the following ironical comment: “Let us, in any case, make
sure of the blows; whether they lead to a pasture is a matter of minor importance—except, of
course, to the beasts”. Russell’s criticism of Plato’s Republic is also characterized by a use of irony.
This recurrent use of irony makes the essay quite entertaining, serious though it is as regards its
ideas. Indeed, Russell shows an exceptional capacity to ridicule what is false, fanciful or ill-
founded.
An Extensive Use of Irony to Expose Certain Absurdities in “The SuperiorVirtue of
the Oppressed”
Irony is all-pervasive in the essay, The Superior Virtue of the Oppressed. Here we have
irony in the very title of the essay, because the superior virtue attributed to the oppressed sections
of the population is purely imaginary; this superior virtue does not really exist: it is simply
attributed to the oppressed class of people as a compensation for the exploitation to which they
are subjected. Russell gives us various examples to illustrate his thesis, and a vein of irony runs
through his analysis of the various cases with which he deals. For instance, he ironically observes
that in the eighteenth century virtue was not to be found in courts but that court ladies could
almost secure it by disguising themselves as shepherdesses because virtue was to be found among
the poor. Russell quotes a couple of lines from a poem by Alexander Pope to show that Pope
expressed a belief in the blessings of poverty; but then Russell ironically adds: “Nevertheless, for
himself Pope preferredLondon and his villa at Twickenham”. What Russell means is that Pope
himself tasted the joys of a fashionable life in the city or near the city, while recommending a poor
life to people living in the countryside. Russell also makes an ironical reference to the British
domination of Ireland. In this context, Russell says that the Irish were regarded by the English as
possessed of a special charm and mystical insight until 1921, when it was found that the expense
of continuing to oppress them would be too heavy. Then Russell goes on to tell us in the same
ironical vein that old English ladies still sentimentalize about the wisdom of the east, and
American intellectuals about the “earth-consciousness” of the Negro. In dealing with men’s
attitude towards the female sex, Russell again makes use of irony. A combination of the Madonna
and the lady of chivalry, says Russell, was created in the nineteenth century as the ideal of the
ordinary married woman. For a long time, women were regarded as a spiritual force and as the
angelic part of humanity, but as soon as women began to demand and acquire equal rights with
men, the belief in their superiority over men on spiritual grounds vanished. Thus the belief in
women’s superiority was part and parcel of men’s determination to keep women inferior
economically and politically. Russell also mocks at the Freudian theory of the unconscious in so
far as it encourages the belief that children are little devils because all kinds of sinful thoughts fill
their unconscious minds. In this connection Russell ironically asks whether this theory states the
objective truth at last or it is merely an adult imaginative compensation for being no longer
allowed to victimize children. And Russell ironically adds: “Let the Freudians answer, such for the
others”. Thus Russell pokes fun at the Freudians. Again, there is much irony in the way Russell
ridicules the communists who tend to discover a superior virtue in the proletariat. The communist
intellectuals find the proletariat more amiable than other people. In other words, the tendency of
the communist intellectuals is to idealize the proletariat, just as Wordsworth idealized children.
It would be more rational, Russell wants to say, for intellectuals to advocate an improvement in
the conditions of life of the proletariat to enable them to enjoy all the advantages of a good life;
there is no point in building up fanciful theories such as the view that the proletariat is more
amiable than other classes of people. Thus Russell gives evidence of his fertile and ready wit. In
attacking what seems false or absurd to him, Russell never loses his temper and never becomes
abusive; he makes use of his ironical wit and his talent for satire to expose the falseness and the
absurdity
The Use of Irony to Ridicule “Modernity”
In the essay, On Being Modern-Minded,the very opening passage contains examples of
Russell’s use of irony. Russell makes fun of the modern man who thinks that he stands at the apex
of human intelligence and that the customs and beliefs of his ancestor have lost all their validity
and value. And then, in the same ironical vein, Russell says that, ifHamlet is to be made
interesting for a really modern reader, it must first be translated into the language of Marx or of
Freud or, better still, into a jargon inconsistently combining both. Russell then refers to a review
according to which what had been written about Hamlet in the past had lost its critical value, and
makes fun of the author of that review by pointing out that the review itself would, by the
reviewer’s own standards, soon become out of date. And then Russell ironically adds that the
reviewer concerned would be quite happy to find his review becoming obsolete because the
reviewer himself would soon have adopted the new fashion in critical opinions. Russell concludes
this part of the argument by the following ironical remark: “Any other ideal for a writer could
seem absurd and old-fashioned to the modern-minded man”. In the same essay Russell goes on
to tell us ironically how fashion dominates opinion in modem times. Fashion makes thinking
unnecessary and puts the highest intelligence within the reach of every one. It is not difficult to
learn the correct use of such words as “complex”, “Oedipus”, “bourgeoise” and “deviation”; and
nothing more is needed to make a brilliant writer or talker. Thus Russell exposes the shallowness
of the modern-minded man who pretends to be a brilliant writer or talker by having learnt the use
of certain words introduced into the language by modem thinkers. A man has merely to parade
his knowledge of these words in order to be thought modern and up-to-date.
An Example of Irony from “The Future of Mankind”
An amusing example of irony occurs in the essay, The Future of Mankind, when Russell
pokes fun at Stalin who then alive. In this connection Russell makes the following ironical remark:
“Stalin at all times knows the truth about metaphysics, but you must not suppose that the truth
this year is the same as it was last year”.
The Use of Irony to Expose the Absurdity of Certain Religious Beliefs
There are several examples of the use of irony in the essay, An Outline of Intellectual
Rubbish. There is ironical humour in the statement that, if pious men are to be believed, God’s
mercies are curiously selective. Russell here refers to the case of a priest who moved from one
residence to another and who thanked God for his mercy when the house he had vacated caught
fire and was burnt down. The implication here is that, if God was merciful to this particular priest,
He must have been merciless towards the next priest who had occupied the house vacated by the
first. A similar absurdity is pointed out in the case of George Borrow. Borrow thanked God for
God’s mercy when he escaped being attacked by bandits who attacked and murdered some other
travellers crossing a particular mountain after Borrow had crossed it. There is also ironical
humour in Russell’s statement that religious persons conceive of God as a peeping Tom, whose
omnipotence enables him to see through bathroom walls but who is foiled by bath-robes. Russell
makes this statement in the context of the practice of nuns who never take a bath without wearing
a bath-robe even when they are inside a bath-room where no man can see them. The plea of the
nuns is that they wear bath-robes not against the eyes of men but against the eyes of God. When
Russell says that the whole conception of sin is puzzling to him, he ironically adds: “doubtless,
owing to my sinful nature”. In the same context, he says that, if God is capable of wanton cruelty,
he should certainly not think Him worthy of worship, and then adds ironically: “But that only
proves how sunk I am in moral depravity”. In connection with the initial opposition to the
dissection of corpses, Russell ironically tells us that a French surgeon’s demand for dead bodies
for purposes of dissection was received with horror by the Chinese, but that the surgeon was
offered an unlimited supply of living criminals whom he could dissect. Again, Russell writes in an
ironical vein: “One would suppose that God sees everything, but apparently this is a mistake. He
does not seeReno, for you cannot be divorced in the sight of God”. (Reno is an American city where
divorce is easy to obtain. The implication is that either God is not present at Reno or that God
does not see Reno.) Speaking of Mr. Homo, Russell ironically says: “If he is a Yugoslav, he boasts
of his nation’s pigs; if a native of Monaco, he boasts of leading the world in the matter of
gambling”. Next, Russell refers ironically to the Biblical doctrine that God made man in His own
image and that everything was created for man’s convenience. Here Russell ironically adds: “Even
the white tails of rabbits, according to some theologians, have a purpose, namely to make it easier
for sportsmen to shoot them”. Commenting on Adam’s eating the apple, Russell ironically says
that originally all animals were vegetarians, and the season was always spring. And, in the same
ironical tone, Russell goes on to say: If only Adam had been content with peaches, nectarines,
grapes, pears,, and pineapples, mankind would not have lost some of the original blessings. It is
noteworthy that all these ironical remarks have been made by Russell in order to expose the
absurdities of certain religious beliefs which have for centuries been dominating the minds of
human, beings.
The Use of Irony in the Essay “Ideas That Have Helped Mankind”
In the essay, Ideas That Have Helped Mankind, we have an example of what is known as
devastating irony. Speaking of international disputes and the possibility of the next world war
completely destroying the human race, Russell points out that narrow nationalistic ideas often
blind the politicians to the disastrous consequences which can result from their squabbles. Russell
in this context refers to the disputes about Persian oil, the disagreement as to Chinese trade, the
quarrels between the Jews and the Muslims for the control of Palestine; and he then makes the
following ironical and sarcastic remark: “Any patriotic person can see that these issues are of such
importance as to make the extermination of mankind preferable to cowardly conciliation”.
Another example of irony in this essay occurs when, after mentioning the brutalities committed
by the Germans and the Russians, he writes: “And how about our noble selves? We would not do
such deeds. Oh no! But we enjoy our juicy steaks and our hot rolls while German children die of
hunger.” This ironical remark is intended to bring out the cruel impulses lurking at the bottom of
the apparently generous mind of the British and the American people.
The Use of Irony in the Essay, “Ideas That Have Harmed Mankind”
In the essay, Ideas That Have Harmed Mankind, Russell gives us an ironical picture of
the minds of the Christian saints. These saints abstained from all the pleasures of the senses. Well
and good. But these saints were not so kind and humane as we might think. Even they sought the
gratification of their cruel impulses. They experienced the pleasure of contemplating the eternal
tortures to which the pagans and heretics would be subjected to in the next life. Again, the two
parables or fables offered by Russell in this essay are ironical in tone and intention. One of the
parables pertains to a cow grazing in a field, and the other relates to the sense of rivalry among
butchers and bakers By means of these fables, Russell makes us laugh at the absurdity of human
beings who create certain myths to explain their misfortunes and the absurdity also of those who
indulge in competitive practices with the object of making larger profits. There is irony too in the
manner in which Russell describes the feelings of national, racial, and religious pride.
Irony to Demolish Obsolete Ideas and Beliefs
In all these cases, it is clear, Russell uses irony in order to attack superstitions, false
notions, ridiculous beliefs, and fanciful suppositions. The use of irony makes these essays
interesting, and lends them a spicy flavour. The use of irony is an important ingredient of Russell’s
prose-style. His style would have been so much less entertaining without the use of this weapon
which is so effective in demolishing ideas that have become obsolete and creeds that have become
outworn. The use of irony greatly contributes to making these essays an intellectual treat for the
reader.
An Introduction to Russell's Sceptical Essays
The book called Sceptical Essays contains as many as seventeen essays. While six of the
essays have been discussed exhaustively in the present work, the other eleven have been
considered briefly. The synopsis of each of these eleven essays is given below with critical
comments on the ideas.
1. “Dreams and Facts”
Irrational beliefs held by people
The majority of the beliefs which we hold are merely an indirect expression of our desires.
Freud has shown how largely our dreams at night picture a fulfilment of our wishes. The beliefs
which we hold are also largely a manifestation of our wishes.
In other words, there is very little rational evidence for the beliefs by which we are guided in our
daily life. Our beliefs are generally irrational—in the sphere of religion, in the sphere of politics,
and in other spheres also. Often we hold beliefs which are flattering to ourselves. Such are our
beliefs regarding our personal merits, regarding the excellence of our family, regarding the
superiority of the class to which we belong, regarding the greatness of our nation, and regarding
the nobility of mankind in general. In other words, we hold a whole hierarchy of comforting
beliefs—those beliefs which are private to the individual; those which he shares with his family,
those common to his class or his nation, and those that are pleasing to all mankind.
How to correct our beliefs?
There are two ways in which our beliefs are corrected:
(i) by contact with actual facts, and (ii) when our beliefs come into conflict with the opposite
beliefs of other men.

The need to know our true place in the world

We seek happiness through our untrue beliefs. A search for happiness based upon untrue
beliefs is neither very noble nor very glorious. We should make a strong effort to know our true
place in the world. No man can be free from fear if he does not have the courage to know his true
place in the world. No man can make a full use of his abilities until he has realised his own
smallness.
Critical comments
The ideas in this essay have a great appeal for every right-thinking person. After all, a right-
thinking person is one who is not irrational or prejudiced in holding opinions, and this essay is a
plea for rationality, it is a pity that even the so-called intellectuals are not completely free from
the tendency to build up their systems of thought on the foundations of their personal preferences.
University professors, journalists, politicians, legal experts—all are prone to hold beliefs which
are supported not by objective evidence but by their own wishes and desires.
2. “Is Science Superstitious?”
Science, the basis of modern life
Science is the basis of modern life in two respects. On the one hand, modern life depends
upon scientific inventions and discoveries as regards food, physical comforts, and amusements.
On the other hand, large sections of the population have now developed certain habits of mind
connected with a scientific outlook.
The conservative tendency of modern scientists
While science is still the chief agent of rapid change in the world, the men of science in
modern times are themselves becoming in the main conservative. The fundamental faith of most
men of science in the present day is the importance of preserving the status quo. Consequently
they claim for science no more than its due, and are willing to grant much of the claims of
conservative forces like religion.
Science versus philosophy
Can science survive when we separate it from the superstitions which nourished its infancy?
Science has been indifferent to philosophy in the past. This indifference was due to the amazing
success that science achieved. But in recent times science has been compelled by its own problems
to take an interest in philosophy. This is especially true of the theory of relativity with its merging
of space and time into the single space-time order of events. But it is true also of the theory of
quanta with its apparent need of discontinuous motion. Also in another sphere, physiology and
bio-chemistry are making inroads on psychology which threaten philosophy in a vital spot. Dr.
Watson’s Behaviourism is the spear-head of this attack. For such reasons science and philosophy
cannot just remain indifferent to each other; they must be either friends or foes. If they cannot be
friends, they can only destroy each other. Neither alone can remain master of the field.
The pleasant and unpleasant aspects of science
Science as it exists at present is partly pleasant, partly unpleasant. It is pleasant because of
the power which it gives us of moulding our environment, and to a small number of people it is
pleasant also because of the intellectual satisfaction which it affords. Science is unpleasant
because it assumes a determinism which involves the power of predicting human actions, and in
this respect it seems to diminish human power. Naturally people wish to keep the pleasant aspect
of science without the unpleasant aspect; but so far efforts to do so have not proved fruitful. The
future may offer some satisfactory solution to this problem.
Critical comments
The layman will find it difficult to grasp the ideas in this essay especially when Russell speaks
about causality and induction which he calls the great scandals in the philosophy of science. There
are brief references also to the views of men like Hume, Kant, and Dr. Whitehead. The essay is
made still more difficult by Russell’s discussion of the subject-matter of two books:
Burtt’s Metaphysical foundations of Modern Science (1924) and Whitehead’sScience and the
Modern World (1926). It is an essay for the specialist.
3. “Can Men Be Rational?”
The meaning of rationality
This essay begins with Russell declaring himself to be a Rationalist. He defines rationality in
his opinion as the habit of taking account of all relevant evidence in arriving at a belief. Where
certainty is not possible a rational man will attach the greatest importance to the most probable
opinion, while keeping other opinions in his mind as alternatives which subsequent evidence may
show to be preferable.
The meaning of irrationality
Irrationality means disbelief in objective facts. It arises mostly from the desire to assert
something for which there is no evidence, or from the desire to deny something for which there is
sufficient evidence.
The usefulness of psycho analysis
Psycho-analysis can prove very useful in the cultivation of rationalism. Psycho-analysis
provides a technique by which we are enabled to see ourselves as others see us.Combined with a
training in the scientific outlook, this method could help people to become much more rational
than they are at present regarding their beliefs about matters of fact and about the probable effects
of any proposed action.
The need of rationality in human life
Complete rationality is undoubtedly an ideal that cannot be achieved. However, it is possible
to attain a fair degree of rationality. All solid progress in the world consists of an increase in
rationality, both practical and theoretical. A man is rational in proportion as his intelligence
determines and controls his desires. The control of our actions by our intelligence is ultimately of
the utmost importance, especially because science has increased the means at our disposal for
harming each other. At present all the great forces in the world—education, the press, politics,
religion—are on the side of irrationality. It is to intelligence that we must look for the solution of
the ills from which our world is suffering. A more sane and balanced view of our relations with
our neighbours and with the world is urgently necessary.
Critical comments
Thus in this essay Russell opposes people’s tendency to hold beliefs for which there are no
grounds. Blind faith and prejudices belong to this category, especially where ideas about our
religion and our country are concerned. Rationalism is a means whereby harmony in social and
international relations can be promoted. Nor can any enlightened man of today quarrel with
Russell’s thesis. Orthodox religious persons will, however, never allow their beliefs to be subjected
to the test of rationalism.
4. “Machines and the Emotions”
The question discussed in this essay is whether machines will destroy emotions or emotions
will destroy machines. This question, says Russell, is becoming more and more actual with the
spread of machinery.
Happiness and machinery
Russell doubts whether happiness in life is proportional to one’s income. If it be accepted that
happiness increases with an increase in one’s income, then machinery deserves the fullest possible
praise. But if that belief be wrong, the case of machinery deserves a closer examination.
The general praise for machine-like qualities in a human being
The fact is that machines deprive us of two things which are certainly important ingredients
of human happiness, namely, spontaneity and variety. The great trouble with the machine, from
the point of view of the emotions, is its regularity. And of course, conversely the great objection
to the emotions, from the point of view of the machine, is their irregularity. The highest praise
which people dominated by machines can give to a man is to say that he has the qualities of a
machine, that he is reliable, punctual, exact, etc. A man who leads an irregular life is supposed to
be a bad man. Against this point of view Bergson’s philosophy was a protest.
Machines responsible for the greater ferocity of modern wars
The greater ferocity of modern wars is due to machines. Machines operate in three different
ways. First, they make it possible to have larger armies. Secondly, they encourage a cheap press
which flourishes by appealing to the baser passions of human beings. Thirdly, they starve the
spontaneous side of human nature, producing a kind of discontent, to which the thought of war
appeals as affording a possible relief. Russell believes that the modern increase in war-like
instincts is due to the unconscious dissatisfaction caused by the regularity, monotony, and
tameness of modern life.
The need for exciting and dangerous hobbies and pursuits
Now, machinery cannot be abolished. Such a measure would not only be reactionary but
impracticable. The only way of avoiding the evils associated with machinery is to provide breaks
in the monotony. People should be encouraged to enjoy the thrills of high adventure, such as
mountain-climbing. People would cease to desire war if they had opportunities for taking part in
some dangerous and exciting hobbies. Understanding of human nature must be the basis of any
real improvement in human life. When science learns to understand human nature, it will be able
to bring a happiness into our lives which machines and the physical sciences have failed to create.
Critical comments
The evils of machinery and industrialism have been pointed out by many thinkers even
though the benefits conferred by the machine have fully been recognized. Machines, according to
Russell, threaten to destroy human emotions by depriving us
ofspontaneity and variety. However, the remedies suggested by him can hardly counter this
threat. Dangerous and exciting pursuits are already available in plenty to people who have a taste
for them. Human nature too has already been explored to a very large extent. But happiness
remains elusive, and war remains a real danger. The only conclusion one can reach is that a
paradise on earth is not possible. Man is an imperfect creature and he has to adjust himself to his
imperfections including his incapacity to achieve perfect happiness. Perhaps a perfectly happy
world would be a dull world, too. War cannot be totally eliminated, and the struggle for happiness
will continue endlessly.
5. “Behaviourism And Values”
Certain older values of life
In this essay Russell’s purpose, as he tells us, is to state certain difficulties which are felt by
persons like himself. These persons, while accepting what is modern in science, have difficulty in
shedding certain values of life which prevailed in the Middle Ages and which these persons find
to be worth pursuing even now.
The popular idea of behaviourism
The popular idea of behaviourism is that all human activities consist of physical or bodily
functions and processes, and that there is no such thing as the mind. This view of behaviourism
seems to attach great importance to motion. But there is a different conception of human
excellence which prevailed in ancient Greece and medieval Europe. That conception of excellence
is being gradually displaced by an outlook resulting from the domination of the machine over the
imagination.
A static ideal of existence
According to the older conception of human excellence, feeling and knowing are as important
as doing; art and contemplation are as admirable as movement or motion. The whole ideal
according to that conception is static. Unfortunately the kind of existence desired by that ideal
bores a modern man.
“Useless” knowledge and delightful art
To Russell the scientific part of behaviourism is, for practical purposes, acceptable, but the
supposed ethical and aesthetic consequences of behaviourism are not acceptable. Russell feels the
highest admiration for Dr. Watson, the great Behaviourist. But Russell cannot cease to admire
knowledge which is now-a-days thought to be useless, and he cannot cease to admire art which
gives delight but serves no practical purpose.
Critical comments
It is surprising that a philosopher who is a mathematician, an agnostic, and a rationalist with
a scientific outlook should yet believe in an ideal of existence which lays stress upon
contemplation and art. It is refreshing to be told that
(1) knowledge which may be “useless” from the practical point of view is yet worth pursuing and
(2) art which may serve no practical end but gives delight is something to be valued. Living in an
age of machinery and industrialism, we are apt to lose sight of what Russell calls the “static” ideal
of human existence. The behaviouristic view of the human personality is at variance with the
values which Russell and men like him continue to cherish.
6. “The Recrudescence of Puritanism”
The meaning of Puritanism
A Puritan may be defined as a man who believes that certain kinds of actions are inherently
sinful, even if those actions have no bad effects upon others. A Puritan wants that such actions
should be prevented through legislation, and be punished if committed.
The practical objection to Puritanism
Puritanism is a kind of fanaticism. Puritanism singles out certain evils as being worse than
other evils, and it demands a suppression of such evils at all costs. The Puritan, like every fanatic,
fails to realise that drastic efforts to suppress any real evil will produce other evils which are even
greater. This statement could be illustrated with reference to the law against obscene publications.
The laws passed against the white-slave traffic could serve as another example of Puritanism.
Another argument against Puritanism
Human nature being what it is, people will insist upon getting some pleasure out of life.
Pleasures are mainly of two kinds, those of the senses or the body, and those of the mind. The
Puritan approves of the pleasures of the mind, but condemns the pleasures of the body. In his
efforts to suppress the pleasures of the body, the Puritan is merely trying to assert his own point
of view in order to gratify his own sense of power. The greatest pleasure of the Puritan consists in
this exercise of power, that is, in preventing others from enjoying themselves. Puritanism leads to
an increasing desire for power, and love of power does greater harm to society than love of liquor
or any of the other vices against which the Puritan protests.
The mistaken views of the Puritan
We must learn to respect each other’s privacy. We should not impose our own moral
standards upon others. The Puritan thinks that his moral standard is the only right moral
standard. He does not understand that other ages and other countries have different moral
standards to which they have as much right as the Puritan has to his. Let us hope that with the
spread of knowledge and education Puritanism will lose much of its power.
Critical comments
Here is an attack on Puritanism which will gladden the heart of every right-thinking person.
It is, indeed, true, as Russell points out, that the Puritan is a kill-joy who, in putting curbs upon
pleasure, seeks to satisfy his own sense of power. The Puritan, we might say, is an essentially
spiteful person who is intolerant of other people’s pleasures. Russell’s views on this subject are
akin to those of Aldous Huxley who too condemns Puritanism or Mrs. Grundy in no uncertain
terms. The Puritan forgets that putting curbs on pleasure only leads to frustration among the
people, causing much discontent and bitterness. In India we have Puritans galore. Most often the
Indian Puritans are hypocrites who condemn liquor and sex as evils but who see nothing wrong
in amassing wealth by dishonest means.
7. “The Need for Political Scepticism”
Two kinds of specialists, politicians and civil servants
There are at present two different kinds of specialists in political questions. On the one hand
there are the practical politicians; on the other hand there are the experts, mainly civil servants
but also economists, financiers, medical men, etc. Each of these two classes has a special kind of
skill. The skill of the politicians consists in finding out what people can be made to
thinkadvantageous to themselves; the skill of the experts consists in finding out what
really isadvantageous.
A politician’s limited appeal
Wherever party politics exists, the appeal of a politician is chiefly to a section of the
population, while the appeal of his opponents is to a different section. A politician’s success
depends upon increasing the strength of his supporters and turning them into a majority. Since
politicians are divided into rival groups, they aim at similarly dividing the nation.
Not desirable to hand over power to civil servants
The expert is a man who does not aim at political power. His purpose is to find out what would
be beneficial rather than what would be popular. In certain directions, he has exceptional
technical knowledge. If he is a civil servant or the head of a big business, he has considerable
experience of individual men, and he may be a shrewd judge of how they will act. However, the
expert suffers from a number of defects. For this reason, we cannot escape from the evils of our
politicians by simply handing over the power to civil servants. Yet it seems necessary that experts
should acquire more influence than they have at present.
The need of political scepticism
Our present political methods are defective and often lead to adoption of harmful policies.
There seems to be no immediate solution of this problem. The best that can be hoped is that people
should become political sceptics in large numbers, and refuse to believe in the various attractive
party programmes that are put before them from time to time. If a political party has a policy
which will do much harm on the way to some ultimate good, the call for scepticism is very great.
The need of a machinery for publicizing the opinions of civil servants
One obvious method of fighting the evils of democracy in its present form would be to
encourage much more publicity and initiative on the part of civil servants. They should be given
the right to frame Bills in their own names, and set forth publicly the arguments in their favour.
At present, in most matters the ordinary citizen does not know the considered opinion of experts,
and little machinery exists for arriving at their collective or majority opinion. In particular, civil
servants are debarred from public advocacy of their views. Some method should be devised by
which the opinion of civil servants can become widely known to the people.
Critical comments
Russell’s emphasis on the need for political scepticism in this essay is fully justified. We
cannot take the views of politicians on trust, because their views are prompted chiefly by self-
interest or by the interest of the party to which they belong. But the remedy suggested by Russell,
namely that there should be a method for publicizing the views of civil servants, is not one that
can appeal to us in India. Already the civil servants or the bureaucrats are having too large a share
in moulding the policies of the government in different fields—social, economic, educational. The
civil servants operate, of course, behind the scenes but they surely influence the government
ministers to a great extent, and this influence is not always wholesome. The bureaucracy does not
generally have the best of motives in moulding the views of the ministers.
8. “Free Thought and Official Propaganda”
Freedom of thought and freedom of the individual
This essay begins with a reference to a distinguished person who devoted his life to two great
objects: freedom of thought, and freedom of the individual. New dangers, says Russell, threaten
both these kinds of freedom at the present time. A vigorous and vigilant public opinion has to be
built up to defend this two-fold freedom.
Restraints on free thought in England as well as in Russia
Thought is not free if a man, by holding or not holding certain opinions, renders himself liable
to legal penalties. Similarly, thought is not free if a man incurs legal penalties by giving expression
to his belief or lack of belief on certain matters. Very few countries in the world have as yet even
this elementary kind of freedom. Russell narrates a few instances to illustrate his view that even
in modern England free-thinking persons suffer from certain disadvantages. A free-thinker in
religion may not, for instance, get a job. Even a belief in communism or in free love may involve
a man in certain difficulties with the government or with society in that country. On the other
hand, in Russia the advantages and disadvantages of holding or not holding certain opinions are
exactly the reverse. InRussia, one can achieve prosperity and position by declaring oneself an
atheist, and by professing a faith in communism and in free love, while no opportunity exists for
a man who in Russia holds the contrary opinions.
The need of rational doubt
William James used to preach the will to believe. Russell, on the other hand, would like to
preach the will to doubt. None of our political, social, religious, and other beliefs are quite true.
We should, therefore, adopt the scientific method of verifying the element of truth in our beliefs.
The scientific attitude is one of doubt, never dogmatic certainty. An attitude of rational doubt is
our great need.
The forces nourishing irrationality
What we find in the world is a great deal of irrationality and a great deal of corresponding
certainty. In the first place man is to some extent irrational by nature, and he is also by nature
somewhat credulous. This inherent irrationality and credulity is nourished and strengthened by
three other agencies—education, propaganda, and economic pressure. It is necessary, therefore,
to counter and oppose all these forces.
State monopoly of elementary education
Elementary education, in all advanced countries, is in the hands of the State. The result is
that children are taught whatever suits the government. To take only one example, the teaching
of history is in every country biased. Every nation aims only at self-glorification, and the
presentation of historical facts is biased in accordance with that aim. The result of this system of
education is that persons holding political and economic views contrary to those of the State are
subjected to varying degrees of persecution in different countries. In Russiathe persecution of
opinion is more severe than in non-communist countries. State mdnopoly of education acts as
one of the chief obstacles to the freedom of thought.
The role of propaganda
Then there is propaganda. Propaganda generally appeals to irrational causes of belief rather
than to serious argument. At the same time, propaganda gives an unfair advantage to those who
can obtain most publicity whether through wealth or through power. On both these grounds
propaganda is something highly objectionable. To protect the freedom of thought it is necessary
to ensure the equality of opportunity among opinions, and propaganda makes that equality
difficult to ensure.
The consequences of economic pressure
Economic pressure is another factor operating against the freedom of thought. The supreme
example of economic pressure applied against freedom of thought is Soviet Russia. But
even America suffers from this curb upon the freedom of thought. A man who openly rejects
Christianty, or believes in a relaxation of the marriage laws, or objects to the power of the great
Corporations, findsAmerica a very uncomfortable country.
The need of observing two simple principles
All social problems can be solved by adopting two simple principles. Firstly, education should
aim at teaching people only to believe those propositions for which there is sufficient ground or
evidence. Secondly, jobs should be given not on the basis of the opinions that individuals hold but
on the basis of fitness to do the work.
The value of the scientific temper
Russell concludes the essay by reiterating the need for spreading the scientific temper. The
scientific temper, he says, is capable of regenerating mankind and providing a solution for all our
troubles.
Critical comments
In this essay too Russell appears as a genuine humanist concerned with the need to protect
the freedom of thought and to strengthen the forces of rationality. As elsewhere in this
book (Sceptical Essays)Russell places a great emphasis on a scientific outlook which involves an
attitude of doubt towards all matters unless sufficient evidence is available for holding a belief.
More than anything else Russell is a rationalist if judged by this particular book which has a most
appropriate title.
9. “Psychology and Politics”
Two ways of approaching psychology
In this essay Russell discusses the effects which psychology may soon come to have upon
politics. There are two important ways of approaching psychology at the present time: one way is
that of the physiologists, the other that of psycho-analysis. As the results in these two directions
become more definite and more certain, psychology will increasingly dominate the outlook of the
people.
The correct approach
There is a certain opposition between those who believe in dealing with the mind through the
body, and those who believe in dealing with the mind directly. The old-fashioned medical man
tends to be a materialist: he thinks that mental states have physical causes, and should be cured
by removing those causes. The psycho-analyst, on the contrary, always seeks psychological causes
and tries to operate upon them. The opposition between these two types of persons is unnecessary.
The correct approach is to realise that sometimes it is easier to discover the physical cause of a
mental ailment and that sometimes the psychological cause is easier to discover.
Various human impulses: acquisitiveness, sex, and the glory impulses
When we try to take a psychological view of politics, we have to look for the fundamental
impulses of ordinary human beings. The orthodox economists of a hundred years ago thought
that the desire to acquire wealth or property was the only motive which the politician should take
into consideration. This view was adopted by Marx and formed the basis of his economic
interpretation of history. Against this, the psycho-analysts say that the one fundamental human
impulse is sex. The desire for acquiring wealth, according to them, is a morbid development of a
certain sexual perversion. It is obvious that people who believe this will act quite differently from
those who take the orthodox or economic view. In Russell’s opinion, sex does not explain
everything. In addition to sex, there are other impulses: love of power, vanity, and rivalry. These
other impulses are concerned with what may be called glory, while sex serves for the preservation
and propagation of life. These other impulses play a very great part in politics. It is necessary,
therefore, to tame these glory-impulses and to give them no more than their proper place.
The use of psychology by the holders of power
There is the danger that psychology will place new weapons in the hands of those who wield
power. The holders of power will become capable of training the masses to become more and more
timid and docile. In fact, the holders of power will produce a peace-loving population if they desire
peace and a war-like population if they desire war. The holders of power will produce an intelligent
population or a stupid population just as they wish. It is impossible to foresee what the holders of
power might wish.

Happiness through psychology

Psychology is capable of giving ordinary men and women a truer conception of what is meant
by happiness. If people were genuinely happy, they would not be filled with envy, anger and
destructiveness. Apart from the necessaries of life, what is most needed by people is freedom for
sex and parenthood. It should not be difficult, with our present knowledge, to make instinctive
happiness almost universal, if we were not opposed by the malicious feelings of the Puritans, who
want happiness neither for themselves nor for others.
Critical comments
Russell here explores the possible effects which the use of psychological methods by
politicians and governments will have on people. There is no doubt that psychology has made
enormous progress and that the holders of power can now greatly mould public opinion in
accordance with their own wishes. (The holders of powers in communist countries are the
governments, while in democratic countries power is shared by the government, the Press, the big
businessmen, and others). While we agree with Russell that the holders of power can mould public
opinion through psychological methods, the question is: who will mould the minds of the holders
of power? As long as the holders of power aim mainly at holding power, their efforts will chiefly
be directed to making the people docile and submissive. Psychology will thus become a hand-maid
to the lust for power.
10. “The Danger of Creed Wars”
Two groups of nations at loggerheads with each other
There are in the world today two great powers—the United States and the U.S.S.R. Each of
these powers has a large number of followers and supporters among the countries of the world.
There is a great deal of conflict between these two groups of nations, each having its own political
creed. Each group hates the other and regards it as wicked. Neither group can prove victorious in
a war or derive any advantage from the conflict.
The prevention of a possible creed war
The conflict between the two groups of nations has in it the seeds of the Third World War.
But as the forces tending to war are psychological, it is possible to control them. If the persons
holding political and governmental power so desire they can avert a possible creed war in the
future.
Communism versus free competition
The Russian ideal is communism. The American ideal is free competition. Where the
communist thinks in terms of organisation, the typical American thinks in terms of individuals.
In the communist philosophy the success which is sought is that of a group or an organisation, in
the American philosophy it is that of the individual. The citizens are not angry with their,
respective social systems either inAmerica or in Russia, especially because the power to control
and mould public opinion is concentrated in a few hands in both countries. The result is that there
is no effective opposition in either country to the holders of power, who remain free to enjoy the
advantages of a social system which gives them wealth and world-wide influence.
The need for a scientific outlook
The opposition between Russia and the western countries is fundamentally economic, but it
may be expected to extend over the whole sphere of belief. The rift could be avoided by the spread
of the scientific spirit, that is, by the habit of forming notions on evidence rather than on prejudice.
But this seems a remote possibility.
Excessive emphasis on economic aspects of life
It is true that individualism has gone too far, and that a more cooperative spirit is necessary,
if industrial societies are to be stable and are to bring contentment to the average man and woman.
But the difficulty in the Bolshevik philosophy, as in that ofAmerica, is that the principle of
organisation for them is economic whereas the groupings which are consonant with human
instinct are biological. The family and the nation are biological, the “trust” and the “trade union”
are economic. The fundamental mistake of our time is the excessive emphasis upon the economic
aspects of life. What is needed is freedom of opinion and opportunity for the spread of opinion. It
should be possible to educate people in such a way as to increase their powers of weighing
evidence and forming rational judgments, instead of being taught patriotism and class bias.
Critical comments
By “creed wars” Russell means, of course, ideological wars—wars which are likely to be fought
between Communistic Russia and the democratic West. To the ideological conflict raging between
Soviet Russia and the western democracies headed by the U.S.A., we might now add the
ideological rift in the Communist camp between Russia and China, a rift which Russell could not
have anticipated. Of course both these conflicts ensue from excessive nationalism and from a
desire to acquire positions of supremacy in world affairs.
11. “Some Prospects: Cheerful and Otherwise”
The need of a central authority for the whole world
Industrialism is one of the most striking features of the modern age. Another feature is that
society has become far more organised than it was formerly. Connected with a closer social
organisation is another result of science, namely, the greater unity of the world. From all this it
follows that, if our civilization is to develop, there will have to be a central authority to control the
whole world. If a central authority does come into existence, what should be its powers?
Some of the powers of a would-be central authority
First and foremost, a central authority may be able to decide questions of peace and war. It
should ensure that, if there is war, the side which the central authority supports can win a speedy
victory. Other matters to be decided by the central authority would be the allocation of territory
to the different countries, movements of population across the boundaries of various countries,
and the rationing of raw materials among different claimants.
Improvement in the economic position
Secure peace and adequate control of production ought to lead to a great increase of material
comfort provided that there is no huge increase in the world population. Whether the world at
that stage is capitalistic or socialistic, we may expect an improvement in the economic position of
all classes.
A possible weakening of the family
Certain things in modern civilised communities are tending to weaken the family. The chief
of these is the humanitarian sentiment towards children. Society is becoming more and more
anxious to protect children against any kind of suffering or distress with the result that parents
feel less concerned about the welfare of their children. If the life of children becomes safe and
secure, without the parents having to bother much about this matter, family life, will gradually
disappear and this will cause profound changes in men’s emotional life.
The spread of scientific knowledge and a possible decline in art
The tendency of culture in modern times is, and will probably continue to be, towards science
and away from art and literature. This is due, of course, to the immense practical utility of science.
The knowledge of science in these days is thought essential. Soon no one will be considered
educated unless he knows something of science. There is nothing wrong in that. But what is
regrettable is that the victories of science are causing an impoverishment of culture in other
directions. Art is becoming more and more an affair of a small minority including a few rich
persons. As a result of this trend, the decay of art is inevitable. This decay will be connected with
our more careful and utilitarian way of living as compared with that of our ancestors.
More leisure and more emphasis on routine amusements
If wars are eliminated, and production is organised scientifically, it is likely that four hours
work a day will suffice to keep everybody in comfort. The hours of leisure will then most certainly
be spent by a majority of the people in dancing, going to the movies, and watching football.
Children will have no cause for anxiety since the State will care for them. Illness will be very rare.
Old age will be postponed by techniques of rejuvenation. The world will become the pleasure-
seeker’s paradise, in which people will find life so tedious as to be scarcely endurable.

The need of a right kind of education in early years

In order to escape from the danger visualised above, it would be necessary to change human
nature in such a way as to preserve sufficient seriousness in life. It is not impossible to change
human nature, if efforts are made to do so by bringing about a change in early education. A large
part of human nature is a matter of upbringing, training, and nurture, chiefly in the early years of
human life. Other steps would be the development of constructive impulses in the young people
and opportunities for their existence in adult life. Given the right education a very large
percentage of mankind could find happiness in constructive activities.
Critical comments
In this essay, it is the prophet in Russell who speaks. Russell visualizes the kind of future
which is in store for mankind. As the title of the essay shows, the prospects are both cheering and
depressing. The bright prospects include
(1) elimination of war and a secure peace; (2) greater material comfort and the economic
betterment of all classes; and
(3) more leisure. The dark possibilities are (1) a decline in art and literature; (2) the weakening of
the bonds between parents and children; and (3) pleasure-seeking as the chief end of life resulting
in a general feeling of tedium and boredom.
Russell has a sound suggestion to offer in order that mankind may be spared the dangers that
threaten them. There should be an emphasis on the right kind of education during the early,
formative years of human life and a directing of human energies into constructive activities.