Unpopular Essays

Rating:
Summary: Pellucid prose from the sharpest wit of the century
Review: Here is a short and easy way of capturing the sparkle and pixie wit of Lord Russell. It is also a good way to keep yourself laughing continuously in impish delight for several hours as Russell skewers dogma after dogma. One is reminded of nothing so much as a lightweight master of the epee skipping through an army of Goliaths armed with heavy truncheons and running his sword through them, one after another, before they know what has happened.-Just one example, the philosophic Goliath known as Aristotle: "Aristotle, in spite of his reputation, is full of absurdities. He says that children should be conceived in the winter, when the wind is in the north, and that if people marry too young the children will be female. He tells us that the blood of the female is blacker than that of males...that women have fewer teeth than men and so on. Nevertheless, he is considered by the great majority of philosophers a paragon of wisdom." So much for Aristotle. He also never tires of skewering the clergy in general and their obscurantism. One of the most amusing sections is his account of the clergy's reaction to the invention of the lighning-rod: "When Benjamin Franklin invented the lightning-rod, the clergy, both in England and America, with the enthusiastic support of George III, condemned it as an impious attempt to defeat the will of God. For, as all right-thinking people were aware, lightning is sent by God to punish impiety or some other grave sin-the virtuous are never struck by lightning. Therefore if God wants to strike anyone, Benjamin ought not to defeat His design..." Finally, he wasn't above a little irony in his self-penned obituary by an imaginary Obit. writer, "...His life, for all its waywardness, had a certain anachronistic consistency, reminiscent of the aristocratic rebels of the early nineteenth century. His principles were curious, but, such as they were, they governed his actions. In private life he showed none of the acerbity that marred his writings, but was a genial conversationalist and not devoid of human sympathy..."-Nobody with even the slightest mote of skepticism toward all the nonsense that's passed for wisdom and deep philosophy in ages heretofore and with a spark of life and sense of humor can leave this book without a lighter heart than when he or she first picked it up.-I can't think of any higher praise for a book.

Rating:
Summary: Pellucid prose from the sharpest wit of the century
Review: Here is a short and easy way of capturing the sparkle and pixie wit of Lord Russell. It is also a good way to keep yourself laughing continuously in impish delight for several hours as Russell skewers dogma after dogma. One is reminded of nothing so much as a lightweight master of the epee skipping through an army of Goliaths armed with heavy truncheons and running his sword through them, one after another, before they know what has happened.-Just one example, the philosophic Goliath known as Aristotle: "Aristotle, in spite of his reputation, is full of absurdities. He says that children should be conceived in the winter, when the wind is in the north, and that if people marry too young the children will be female. He tells us that the blood of the female is blacker than that of males...that women have fewer teeth than men and so on. Nevertheless, he is considered by the great majority of philosophers a paragon of wisdom." So much for Aristotle. He also never tires of skewering the clergy in general and their obscurantism. One of the most amusing sections is his account of the clergy's reaction to the invention of the lighning-rod: "When Benjamin Franklin invented the lightning-rod, the clergy, both in England and America, with the enthusiastic support of George III, condemned it as an impious attempt to defeat the will of God. For, as all right-thinking people were aware, lightning is sent by God to punish impiety or some other grave sin-the virtuous are never struck by lightning. Therefore if God wants to strike anyone, Benjamin ought not to defeat His design..." Finally, he wasn't above a little irony in his self-penned obituary by an imaginary Obit. writer, "...His life, for all its waywardness, had a certain anachronistic consistency, reminiscent of the aristocratic rebels of the early nineteenth century. His principles were curious, but, such as they were, they governed his actions. In private life he showed none of the acerbity that marred his writings, but was a genial conversationalist and not devoid of human sympathy..."-Nobody with even the slightest mote of skepticism toward all the nonsense that's passed for wisdom and deep philosophy in ages heretofore and with a spark of life and sense of humor can leave this book without a lighter heart than when he or she first picked it up.-I can't think of any higher praise for a book.

Rating:
Summary: Great style, clear thinking
Review: I had never read anything by Bertrand Russell before. I thought he would be difficult, but these essays were lucid and humorous. He manages to demolish the theories of almost every great philosopher of the past. His predictions for the future, either chaos or world government, haven't materialized yet, but either is still a possibility.

Rating:
Summary: Dogmatic Anti-Dogmatism At Its Finest
Review: Lord Russell sets the indicative tone for this collection of mostly polemical essays in his Preface, when he explains his choice of the adjective "Unpopular" in his title. "...There are several sentences in the present volume which some unusually stupid children of ten might find a little puzzling. On this ground I do not claim that the essays are popular; and if not popular, then 'unpopular.'" Russell says exactly what he thinks, has no patience for fools and does not hesitate to ridicule muddled thinking and wrong-headed beliefs wherever he may find them.

This work contains 10 essays written between 1935 and 1950, with the common theme being the pernicious impact of dogmatic, unsupportable beliefs. By and large, Russell is highly effective in making his case across a broad range of topics, from the debunking of philosophy's giants such as Plato ("That Plato's Republic should have been admired, on its political side, by decent people is perhaps the most astonishing example of literary snobbery in all history."), Aristotle ("Aristotle, in spite of his reputation, is full of absurdities.") and Hegel ("To anyone who still cherishes the hope that man is a more or less rational animal, the success of this farrago of nonsense must be astonishing.") to the fallacies of discrimination against women, xenophobia and our modern public education system.

His sharpest attacks are reserved for Man's superstitions and particularly for those of the religious variety. Russell is a well-known rationalist thinker and atheist and his views are driven by the common sense dictum that one should only believe that which has sufficient supporting, scientific evidence. This leads to the view that deism is unlikely and that modern revealed religions are pure folly. He convincingly notes the common drivers of these fatuous beliefs across epochs to be fear, a need for self-importance, ignorance and socialization.

My primary issue with Russell is that, while he ostensibly ascribes to a "Liberal" worldview (i.e. a scientific perspective on facts and opinions that holds positions tentatively with a "consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment.") and excoriates dogmatic beliefs, he can be, in fact, highly dogmatic in the presentation of his views. This is particularly disturbing when he ventures into areas he clearly does not fully grasp, such as economics. In "The Future of Mankind" (far and away the weakest of the 10 essays), he makes the highly naïve, silly statement that "Unless we can cope with the problem of abolishing war, there is no reason whatever to rejoice in labor-saving techniques, but quite the reverse." His point is that higher labor productivity leads to a lower labor requirement to generate life's necessities, thereby freeing up more people for war. Refuting this nonsense hardly seems necessary, but it should be clear that labor does not automatically flow from food production to war production and that more evolved economies do not automatically lead to more war mongering.

Notwithstanding these occasional pratfalls from the platform of reason, Russell is for the most part extremely lucid in his analyses and views. He is also sharp-witted and entertaining in his gleeful exposition of folly. All of this results in prose which is remarkably easy to read while provoking rational thought and leads to my 4-star rating.

Rating:
Summary: Dogmatic Anti-Dogmatism At Its Finest
Review: Lord Russell sets the indicative tone for this collection of mostly polemical essays in his Preface, when he explains his choice of the adjective "Unpopular" in his title. "...There are several sentences in the present volume which some unusually stupid children of ten might find a little puzzling. On this ground I do not claim that the essays are popular; and if not popular, then 'unpopular.'" Russell says exactly what he thinks, has no patience for fools and does not hesitate to ridicule muddled thinking and wrong-headed beliefs wherever he may find them.

This work contains 10 essays written between 1935 and 1950, with the common theme being the pernicious impact of dogmatic, unsupportable beliefs. By and large, Russell is highly effective in making his case across a broad range of topics, from the debunking of philosophy's giants such as Plato ("That Plato's Republic should have been admired, on its political side, by decent people is perhaps the most astonishing example of literary snobbery in all history."), Aristotle ("Aristotle, in spite of his reputation, is full of absurdities.") and Hegel ("To anyone who still cherishes the hope that man is a more or less rational animal, the success of this farrago of nonsense must be astonishing.") to the fallacies of discrimination against women, xenophobia and our modern public education system.

His sharpest attacks are reserved for Man's superstitions and particularly for those of the religious variety. Russell is a well-known rationalist thinker and atheist and his views are driven by the common sense dictum that one should only believe that which has sufficient supporting, scientific evidence. This leads to the view that deism is unlikely and that modern revealed religions are pure folly. He convincingly notes the common drivers of these fatuous beliefs across epochs to be fear, a need for self-importance, ignorance and socialization.

My primary issue with Russell is that, while he ostensibly ascribes to a "Liberal" worldview (i.e. a scientific perspective on facts and opinions that holds positions tentatively with a "consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment.") and excoriates dogmatic beliefs, he can be, in fact, highly dogmatic in the presentation of his views. This is particularly disturbing when he ventures into areas he clearly does not fully grasp, such as economics. In "The Future of Mankind" (far and away the weakest of the 10 essays), he makes the highly naïve, silly statement that "Unless we can cope with the problem of abolishing war, there is no reason whatever to rejoice in labor-saving techniques, but quite the reverse." His point is that higher labor productivity leads to a lower labor requirement to generate life's necessities, thereby freeing up more people for war. Refuting this nonsense hardly seems necessary, but it should be clear that labor does not automatically flow from food production to war production and that more evolved economies do not automatically lead to more war mongering.

Notwithstanding these occasional pratfalls from the platform of reason, Russell is for the most part extremely lucid in his analyses and views. He is also sharp-witted and entertaining in his gleeful exposition of folly. All of this results in prose which is remarkably easy to read while provoking rational thought and leads to my 4-star rating.

Rating:
Summary: Dogmatic Anti-Dogmatism At Its Finest
Review: Lord Russell sets the indicative tone for this collection of mostly polemical essays in his Preface, when he explains his choice of the adjective "Unpopular" in his title. "...There are several sentences in the present volume which some unusually stupid children of ten might find a little puzzling. On this ground I do not claim that the essays are popular; and if not popular, then 'unpopular.'" Russell says exactly what he thinks, has no patience for fools and does not hesitate to ridicule muddled thinking and wrong-headed beliefs wherever he may find them.

This work contains 10 essays written between 1935 and 1950, with the common theme being the pernicious impact of dogmatic, unsupportable beliefs. By and large, Russell is highly effective in making his case across a broad range of topics, from the debunking of philosophy's giants such as Plato ("That Plato's Republic should have been admired, on its political side, by decent people is perhaps the most astonishing example of literary snobbery in all history."), Aristotle ("Aristotle, in spite of his reputation, is full of absurdities.") and Hegel ("To anyone who still cherishes the hope that man is a more or less rational animal, the success of this farrago of nonsense must be astonishing.") to the fallacies of discrimination against women, xenophobia and our modern public education system.

His sharpest attacks are reserved for Man's superstitions and particularly for those of the religious variety. Russell is a well-known rationalist thinker and atheist and his views are driven by the common sense dictum that one should only believe that which has sufficient supporting, scientific evidence. This leads to the view that deism is unlikely and that modern revealed religions are pure folly. He convincingly notes the common drivers of these fatuous beliefs across epochs to be fear, a need for self-importance, ignorance and socialization.

My primary issue with Russell is that, while he ostensibly ascribes to a "Liberal" worldview (i.e. a scientific perspective on facts and opinions that holds positions tentatively with a "consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment.") and excoriates dogmatic beliefs, he can be, in fact, highly dogmatic in the presentation of his views. This is particularly disturbing when he ventures into areas he clearly does not fully grasp, such as economics. In "The Future of Mankind" (far and away the weakest of the 10 essays), he makes the highly naïve, silly statement that "Unless we can cope with the problem of abolishing war, there is no reason whatever to rejoice in labor-saving techniques, but quite the reverse." His point is that higher labor productivity leads to a lower labor requirement to generate life's necessities, thereby freeing up more people for war. Refuting this nonsense hardly seems necessary, but it should be clear that labor does not automatically flow from food production to war production and that more evolved economies do not automatically lead to more war mongering.

Notwithstanding these occasional pratfalls from the platform of reason, Russell is for the most part extremely lucid in his analyses and views. He is also sharp-witted and entertaining in his gleeful exposition of folly. All of this results in prose which is remarkably easy to read while provoking rational thought and leads to my 4-star rating.

Rating:
Summary: An exciting look at the world of philosophy
Review: Lord Russell's book provides novice philosophers with a great introduction into the field. The essays are written with Russell's characteristic wit and bite. A perfect way to bring the fun back to philosophy. However, for the serious student of philosophy, this book will probably do little more than provide enjoyment.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting Book
Review: Russell skewers all who believe they are right, regardless of their motivation. To him, anyone spouting Dogma is an open target for ridicule.

My favorite piece, "the superior virtue of the oppressed" is as relevent today as it was eighty years ago. In it, he attacks those who look for a cause to call their own. He dispells the notion of the good ole days and questions whether any group of humans is morally superior to any other, regardless of their place in the power scheme.

A truly terrific writer. If you haven't read Russell, you know nothing about philosophy.

Rating:
Summary: A terrific Polemicist
Review: Russell skewers all who believe they are right, regardless of their motivation. To him, anyone spouting Dogma is an open target for ridicule.

My favorite piece, "the superior virtue of the oppressed" is as relevent today as it was eighty years ago. In it, he attacks those who look for a cause to call their own. He dispells the notion of the good ole days and questions whether any group of humans is morally superior to any other, regardless of their place in the power scheme.

A truly terrific writer. If you haven't read Russell, you know nothing about philosophy.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting Book
Review: The 'Unpopular Essays' of Bertrand Russell are a fabulously insightful body of literature, but I think that Russell makes one critical error. In his fight against dogmatism, he doesn't seem to realize that the search for truth is not an end unto itself. He ran in circles intellectually his entire life, and I don't know that he ever really decided what he believed beyond a few basic principles. In the principles he believed in, however, he was nearly flawless. His comments on education and 'Liberalism' are dead on. He was doubtlessly a brilliant man, and the impeccable ability to reason which he acquired as a mathematician served him extraordinarily well as a philosopher and logician. His insights into human nature are also very profound. I do not mean to say that I agree with everything he says in this book (his arguments against Christianity are all especially unfair and targeted exclusively at straw men), but I cannot help but admire Russell as one of the finest and most insightful philosophers of the twentieth century.