What I Believe by Bertrand Russell (1925)
I have just finished the book, it is a little book but a to-the-point book. I have always loved the ease with which we read Russell’s books. His words and language structures are just genius in their meaning and their ease. He knows how to get to your heart and your mind without an effort on your side or his.
The book is little guidebook on what Russell thinks is a good life.
The book has five chapters
I. Nature and Man,
II. The Good Life,
III. Moral Rules,
IV. Salvation, Individual and Social, and
V. Science and Happiness,
and they are all worth reading.
The philosophy of nature versus the philosophy of value is discussed in Chapter I. The philosophy of nature is much bigger than the human and his happiness or unhappiness. Nothing is good or bad there as opposed to the philosophy of value where everything is appraised by us with no outside standard.
“It is for us to determine the good life, not for Nature — not even for Nature personified as God.”
Knowledge and love are both essential for a good life, and missing one of the causes a lot of harm not just to individuals but to communities. His arguments are always related to logic and scientific justification.
It was interesting to read his views on the justice system and criminals treatment, in the Moral Rules part.
The idea of democratizing courage by events in the 19th century after being an exclusive characteristic of a social class or cult, is interesting.
“It has been physical science that has had most effect upon our lives, but in the future physiology and psychology are likely to be far more potent. When we discovered how character depends upon physiological conditions, we shall be able, if we choose, to produce far more of the type of human beings that we admire. Intelligence, artistic capacity, benevolence—all these things no doubt could be increased by science.”
This was a wish and a forecast of what he thought future science will accomplish. And his closing paragraph was,
“Nature, even human nature, will cease more and more to be an absolute datum; more and more it will become what scientific manipulation has made it. Science can, if it chooses, enable our grandchildren to live the good life, by giving them knowledge, self-control, and characters productive of harmony rather than strife. At present, it is teaching our children to kill each other, because many men of science are willing to sacrifice the future of mankind to their own momentary prosperity. But this phase will pass when men acquired domination over their own passions that they already have over the physical forces of the external world. Then atlast we shall have won our freedom.”
We as his grandchildren, in the age of the internet and with an unprecedented amount of information did we succeed to live a good life? Do we have enough knowledge to achieve that.
In my opinoin, we have not. Until this day, man still runs after his desire for power over others, trying to gain strength to weaken others and achieve his own momentary prosperity.
I wish to know what other people think is the answer to this question.
If anyone really reads my blog, I am waiting to know your opinion.
This is what jWoman has to say today.
I have just finished the book, it is a little book but a to-the-point book. I have always loved the ease with which we read Russell’s books. His words and language structures are just genius in their meaning and their ease. He knows how to get to your heart and your mind without an effort on your side or his.
The book is little guidebook on what Russell thinks is a good life.
“The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge.”
The book has five chapters
I. Nature and Man,
II. The Good Life,
III. Moral Rules,
IV. Salvation, Individual and Social, and
V. Science and Happiness,
and they are all worth reading.
The philosophy of nature versus the philosophy of value is discussed in Chapter I. The philosophy of nature is much bigger than the human and his happiness or unhappiness. Nothing is good or bad there as opposed to the philosophy of value where everything is appraised by us with no outside standard.
“It is for us to determine the good life, not for Nature — not even for Nature personified as God.”
Knowledge and love are both essential for a good life, and missing one of the causes a lot of harm not just to individuals but to communities. His arguments are always related to logic and scientific justification.
It was interesting to read his views on the justice system and criminals treatment, in the Moral Rules part.
The idea of democratizing courage by events in the 19th century after being an exclusive characteristic of a social class or cult, is interesting.
“It has been physical science that has had most effect upon our lives, but in the future physiology and psychology are likely to be far more potent. When we discovered how character depends upon physiological conditions, we shall be able, if we choose, to produce far more of the type of human beings that we admire. Intelligence, artistic capacity, benevolence—all these things no doubt could be increased by science.”
This was a wish and a forecast of what he thought future science will accomplish. And his closing paragraph was,
“Nature, even human nature, will cease more and more to be an absolute datum; more and more it will become what scientific manipulation has made it. Science can, if it chooses, enable our grandchildren to live the good life, by giving them knowledge, self-control, and characters productive of harmony rather than strife. At present, it is teaching our children to kill each other, because many men of science are willing to sacrifice the future of mankind to their own momentary prosperity. But this phase will pass when men acquired domination over their own passions that they already have over the physical forces of the external world. Then atlast we shall have won our freedom.”
We as his grandchildren, in the age of the internet and with an unprecedented amount of information did we succeed to live a good life? Do we have enough knowledge to achieve that.
In my opinoin, we have not. Until this day, man still runs after his desire for power over others, trying to gain strength to weaken others and achieve his own momentary prosperity.
I wish to know what other people think is the answer to this question.
If anyone really reads my blog, I am waiting to know your opinion.
This is what jWoman has to say today.
No comments:
Post a Comment