It’s always nice to read a philosophy book rather than a book about philosophy. I also haven’t read any Russell from cover to cover since, probably, my early 20’s – so this was a nice change on both grounds. My immediate thought was that this book was very much of its time. Written in 1928 it is clear that the recent Great War still hung heavily over any intellectual thought process. An underlying theme expressed throughout this volume was the desire to avoid another conflict of this scale as well as the fear that such a conflict might be inevitable.
In some ways I found Russell’s ideas to be profoundly naïve. Obviously it’s easy, looking back with 20-20 hindsight, to see that his prophecy of a World Government in particular as no more that wishful thinking. Also his idealisation of Socialism as the solution to most of the world’s problems can be seen, with the knowledge we have of the failed Soviet state, as rather simplistic. Beyond these, honestly historical, issues I actually thought that he talked lots of sense. He was very liberal for the age and even seemed to be advocating gay rights – although he never actually came out directly to say that. The main thrust of this book was – naturally – a robust defence of scepticism particularly in politics and religion. He made a very good case that a sceptical outlook would prevent people from oppressing other groups because no one would hold any idea with enough certainty to justify that oppression. If I can’t be totally sure I’m right how can I justify attacking your beliefs which might actually be the correct one – hence a more tolerant society. Likewise, if scepticism was inculcated from an early age – particularly as part of the education process – it would be impossible (or at least very difficult) for any political party to lead people into war or any other disastrous endeavour. Actually Russell thought that scepticism could result in the end of political parties as it would be impossible to believe in any ideology totally enough for any kind of party political organisation to last for very long. What a very strange world that would be!
Ironically Russell ended on his ideas about the future of Western Civilisation – a growing economic power and the inevitability of a World State – just one year before the Great Crash of ’29 and the world war that followed on its heels. So in many ways this book is a purely historical document which reflects some of the ideas of the time. However, there are still enough general gems in there to make it worth a read. Russell is a man of his times and social class but he does try hard to be what we would consider to be a modern individual. No doubt he would be shocked by many things that we take for granted but I think he would be pleased at some of the obvious progress we have made since the late 1920’s. So this book is recommended on several levels – as a work of history and as a work of philosophy.
5 comments:
I remember reading "Why I Am Not a Christian" a thousand years ago, and it was one of my first exposures to skeptical writings. I remember thinking some of his notions quaint, and doubtless they would seem more so now. But as you say we are all products of our time. I also read his autobiography and a few others. I still have them on the shelf though I've not looked at any of them for 20 years or more.
There are two collections of Russell I am eager to read -- "In Praise of Idleness" and "The Conquest of Happiness". A book I read, 'Rapt', called my attention to the latter, I think.
Wunelle - I bought "Why I Am Not a Christian" at the same time as this book and intend to read it early in 2011.
sc - I've heard of "In Praise of Idleness" and "The Conquest of Happiness" but own neither ATM.
I enjoy his writting style and think that he's very level headed and sensible (by and large) for a Philosopher.
I have Conquest of Happiness and a couple of the volumes of his autobiography. Haven't read them yet, but eager to.
I don't fault Russell at all for his idealism about a a "world government". Having grown up on sci-fi, it's so painfully obvious that at some point in our future, the whole concept of countries will be laughable. The things that divide us country to country and even party to party within a country are so incredibly petty and insignificant.
CK said, " ... scepticism could result in the end of political parties as it would be impossible to believe in any ideology totally enough for any kind of party political organisation to last for very long" -- I am ostensibly a Democrat but the whole concept of political parties makes me want to vomit most of the time. I would celebrate blowing the whole darn system up and starting from scratch.
dbackdad said: Having grown up on sci-fi, it's so painfully obvious that at some point in our future, the whole concept of countries will be laughable.
Nationalism was certainly an unfortunate step - though maybe a necessary one. I look forward to the day - not in our lifetimes unfortunately - when nations are seen as of historical interest only. The European Union is, I think, a step in the right direction... though I know that some of my friends violently disagree with me on that one!
dbackdad said: The things that divide us country to country and even party to party within a country are so incredibly petty and insignificant.
Indeed. Humans can be incredibly shortsighted and selfish - and stupidly agressive about silly things.
dbackdad said: I am ostensibly a Democrat but the whole concept of political parties makes me want to vomit most of the time.
I think that the only reason political parties exist is to give the rest of us the illusion of choice - as if 'choosing' our masters is a good thing!
Post a Comment