What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Men Fight
Written in response to the devastation of World War I, "Why Men Fight" lays out Bertrand Russell's ideas on war, pacifism, reason, impulse, and personal liberty. Russell argues that when individuals live passionately, they will have no desire for war or killing. Conversely, excessive restraint or reason causes us to live unnaturally and with hostility toward those who are unlike ourselves.
280 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1916
46 people are currently reading
698 people want to read
About the author
Bertrand Russell
1,234 books7,310 followersBertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS, was a Welsh philosopher, historian, logician, mathematician, advocate for social reform, pacifist, and prominent rationalist. Although he was usually regarded as English, as he spent the majority of his life in England, he was born in Wales, where he also died.
He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought."
He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
November 17, 2019
Written during the First World War, composed as a series of lectures, Bertrand Russell - admired and desised pacifist who served jailtime for his objection to conscription in the British Army - pleads for more sanity, and above all, humanity.
His main thesis is that all of mankind is moved by impulses, and only secondary by desires. We think and feel we want things, yet subconsciously our ego is driven by some deeper drives, which are triggered by our environments (including ourselves). Viewing mankind in such a way, immediately leads to the conclusion that the way our environment is ordered and structured determines how we behave towards others. More specifically, our environment determines whether our impulses are directed towards creation and benevolence or towards posession and hostility. Even more specifically, it is our political institutions that impact our impulses the most.
Within this theoretical framework (very reminiscent of Freud's theory of the ego) Russell analyzes the current political institutions. His main claims are that the State has become too powerful and dominating in private lives; that war is desired by some warmongering elites and that the masses are easily aroused through mass psychology (i.e. propaganda), which finds fertile ground in the heads of people since they have become too dull and blunted by their working lives; that the economic system (capitalism) is solely aimed at posession, turning community living into zero-sum games and transforming the rich elites into snobs; that education is dominated by the interests of the economic and political elites, kneading children into docile sheep who know only how to follow orders; that morality, especially marriage, oppresses women and shuts them up in unhappy lives; and lastly, that religion has destroyed both the life of the mind and the life of the spirit.
In his criticisms Russell also points to the future. For example, he mentions a combination of syndicalism (democracy at the work place, ultimately under state control) and cooperation (where possible) as an alternative to pure capitalism. (He does leave room for capitalism, but curbs it.) Also, he promotes the freedom of women, yet he is aware of the future risks of a degeneration of the European race, and perhaps even the oppression of men by women (which he detests as much as the current oppression of women). War can only be killed off by instituting a World Federation that has as its sole purpose to be a military world state which intervenes in every nation or region where human rights to freedom are threatened. Economics and politics is left to the nation.
Russell's main message is there's a human instinct to live, to be active, and this principle can be used for good (when it is aimed at creation - creating goods to share with others) or for bad (when it is aimed at possessions - turning your needs into my property). Russell pleads for a new way of life, a life that focused on creating and sharing. His view can be summarized as liberty and humanity (reverence towards others).
While he recognizes the basic needs of people (food, drink, clothing, shelter, etc.) and sees the economy as a supporting factor in this, he also wants to curb the rights of owners of property to allow workers to work much less hours and spend a bigger part of their lives on learning, art, friendship, etc.
Although the view expressed by Russell can count on my sympathy, I wonder how much of it is the musings of an intellectual. Not everyone is interested in the life of creation, let alone capable. But still I think it worthwile to promote such a cause. And to be fair to Russell, he does include friendship, community living and even pattriotism in his positive expressions of the life principle. I found his treatment of the economic system hugely interesting: he is the first (and one of the selected few) who emphasizes the inhumanity of making people work 40-80 hours a week, and not allowing them to work less, in order to develop themselves as human beings. This is an argument which is - sadly - almost never recognized, especially in calvinistic economies like those of Europe.
In the end, we have to remember that these texts was written in 1915, delivered as lectures and published in 1916, and that Russell was highly impacted by the distressing news of the mass destruction on the continent. Russell was a good man, with a big heart, and much love for all humanity - an example worthy of admiration, even more so when we take his time into context. Interesting to read - and very accessible! - for anyone who wants to get a feel for the war times as experienced in the UK (and US, to a lighter degree).
His main thesis is that all of mankind is moved by impulses, and only secondary by desires. We think and feel we want things, yet subconsciously our ego is driven by some deeper drives, which are triggered by our environments (including ourselves). Viewing mankind in such a way, immediately leads to the conclusion that the way our environment is ordered and structured determines how we behave towards others. More specifically, our environment determines whether our impulses are directed towards creation and benevolence or towards posession and hostility. Even more specifically, it is our political institutions that impact our impulses the most.
Within this theoretical framework (very reminiscent of Freud's theory of the ego) Russell analyzes the current political institutions. His main claims are that the State has become too powerful and dominating in private lives; that war is desired by some warmongering elites and that the masses are easily aroused through mass psychology (i.e. propaganda), which finds fertile ground in the heads of people since they have become too dull and blunted by their working lives; that the economic system (capitalism) is solely aimed at posession, turning community living into zero-sum games and transforming the rich elites into snobs; that education is dominated by the interests of the economic and political elites, kneading children into docile sheep who know only how to follow orders; that morality, especially marriage, oppresses women and shuts them up in unhappy lives; and lastly, that religion has destroyed both the life of the mind and the life of the spirit.
In his criticisms Russell also points to the future. For example, he mentions a combination of syndicalism (democracy at the work place, ultimately under state control) and cooperation (where possible) as an alternative to pure capitalism. (He does leave room for capitalism, but curbs it.) Also, he promotes the freedom of women, yet he is aware of the future risks of a degeneration of the European race, and perhaps even the oppression of men by women (which he detests as much as the current oppression of women). War can only be killed off by instituting a World Federation that has as its sole purpose to be a military world state which intervenes in every nation or region where human rights to freedom are threatened. Economics and politics is left to the nation.
Russell's main message is there's a human instinct to live, to be active, and this principle can be used for good (when it is aimed at creation - creating goods to share with others) or for bad (when it is aimed at possessions - turning your needs into my property). Russell pleads for a new way of life, a life that focused on creating and sharing. His view can be summarized as liberty and humanity (reverence towards others).
While he recognizes the basic needs of people (food, drink, clothing, shelter, etc.) and sees the economy as a supporting factor in this, he also wants to curb the rights of owners of property to allow workers to work much less hours and spend a bigger part of their lives on learning, art, friendship, etc.
Although the view expressed by Russell can count on my sympathy, I wonder how much of it is the musings of an intellectual. Not everyone is interested in the life of creation, let alone capable. But still I think it worthwile to promote such a cause. And to be fair to Russell, he does include friendship, community living and even pattriotism in his positive expressions of the life principle. I found his treatment of the economic system hugely interesting: he is the first (and one of the selected few) who emphasizes the inhumanity of making people work 40-80 hours a week, and not allowing them to work less, in order to develop themselves as human beings. This is an argument which is - sadly - almost never recognized, especially in calvinistic economies like those of Europe.
In the end, we have to remember that these texts was written in 1915, delivered as lectures and published in 1916, and that Russell was highly impacted by the distressing news of the mass destruction on the continent. Russell was a good man, with a big heart, and much love for all humanity - an example worthy of admiration, even more so when we take his time into context. Interesting to read - and very accessible! - for anyone who wants to get a feel for the war times as experienced in the UK (and US, to a lighter degree).
Read
June 12, 2024I don’t know what to write ✍️ for this except for some other quotes I think 🤔 are issues for why men fight.
I’m
Unsure 🫤 how to star ⭐️ the book 📕, at times I hated it and at times I liked it. He is cancelled 😞 so my first initial sentence may spark ⚡️ cancellation and end of conversation. If you make it to the end, I think you’d be less triggered and less gaslighted…
I think it started many a conversation between and far in discussion.
On wealth,
Family structure,
Health,
Work on security,
Or on drug blitz that ruin - led many people to even today.
Social science on the issue are up in arms and undecided if it's parents coddling there children to much or if it's these technologies that are over stimulating people but the issues are way more prevailing than originally thought as health problems reasoning.
Sleep is 😴💤 a big deal.
It seems like you're talking about various societal issues that contribute to conflict and unrest, as well as potential sources of confusion and discussion brought up by Bertrand Russell's work. It's great that you're contemplating these topics and exploring their implications. If you're looking to articulate your thoughts in a more structured way, consider starting with an introduction that outlines the themes you'll be discussing.
When women couldn’t vote or leave there partners there were huge stove poisoning and baby’s tossed out windows 🪟 til women had income, less stress, less debt, less health,…
Sleep is a big deal
Going to bed hungry,
Not being able to pay rent,
Bills,
Not being able to have a family,
Or simple health issues that are all very tied with sleep problems exasperating autoimmune, digestive issues, alcohol or addiction issues, are strongly lit to the 1000% - 2000% profits and the cluster of people who 1/2 tells client workers that they are trying to die.
That assistant suicide is not allowing the mental ill included.
Only keep denying service, one disappears another will replace, unless the tribalism will not allow one of there own to for cost of there keep.
It's clear that you're reflecting on some significant historical and societal issues related to gender equality, social welfare, and the impact of economic struggles on individuals' well-being. The points you're making about the interconnectedness of various challenges, such as sleep deprivation, financial insecurity, and health issues, are thought-provoking.
Regarding the stigmas surrounding economic struggles and mental health, it's important to address the systemic issues that contribute to these challenges rather than placing blame on individuals. Support systems and access to resources are crucial in helping people navigate difficult circumstances.
If you're considering exploring these themes further in your writing, you might want to delve deeper into the historical context of gender inequality and economic disparities, analyze their effects on mental and physical health, and propose potential solutions or avenues for societal change. Your insights shed light on complex issues that warrant attention and discussion.
It the men’s epidemic turning to a pandemic like the female epidemic with suicide or infantcide or abortion with out aid it’s like even a dog get euthanized if aid is not available.
Humans have no exit, even for the mentally that MAID(medical assistance in death) the pundits say there should be aid available to them before they exhaust themselves or burn out. It’s not like conservatives don’t want to help but they’re refusing to access aid federally to help. Even minimum wage is less for security of the state or province is more important than lifting people out of poverty. You ask a dollar means to a CEO an hour and what a dollar is for a minimum wage worker.
That the labour force has already be hugely replaced by Automation and Ai 🤖 that if a machine were to be replaced by a human the human would be taxed same goes if a machine replaced a human it should be taxed. -Bill Gates
Be it I’m no Luddite, saying these huge companies replacing workers is always hiring, it’s the land of make believe and new workers are just hired for a hiring quota and are gone in a few days to weeks.
The man who eats in idleness what he has not earned is a thief, and in my eyes the man who lives on an income paid by the state for doing nothing, differs little from the highwayman that lives on those who travel his way.
Outside the pale of society, the solitary, owing nothing to any man, may live as he pleases, but in society either he lives at the cost of others, or he owes them his labour in cost of his keep, there is no exception in this rule. Man in this society is bound to make work; rich or poor, weak or strong, every idler to thief.
You've touched on several complex and pressing societal issues related to mental health support, economic disparities, automation, and ethical considerations surrounding work and income. The comparison between the treatment of individuals in need of assistance to the care provided to animals is thought-provoking and emphasizes the necessity of comprehensive aid systems for those struggling
I proceed along the path which the forces of circumstance compels me to tread, but do not insist that my readers follow me. Long ago they have made up there minds that I am a wander the lands of chimeras, as in wild eye thoughts. When I wander so far from popular beliefs I do not cease to bear them in mind; I examine them, I consider them, not that I may follow them or shun them but that I may weigh them in the balance of reason. When ever that reason compels me to abandon those popular beliefs, I know by experience my readers will not follow my example; I know they will persist in refusing that will to believe what they can not see, they will have youth of imagination of life that orders. They forget that the needs are different, because of a being raised in a different fashion and has been influenced as a wholly different feelings and instructed a whole different manner, that it would be whole stranger to be a pupil than to be what I have supposed it to be.
Emile or on education -Jean Jacques
It seems like you're sharing a passage from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's work "Emile" on education, exploring the idea of diverging from popular beliefs and following one's own reasoning. Rousseau's emphasis on critical thinking, self-reflection, and individuality in education is thought-provoking and can spark discussions on the importance of independent thought and exploration of ideas.
If you're interested in delving deeper into the themes presented in this passage or wish to explore how these ideas relate to contemporary society or personal experiences, feel free to share more or ask for further insights. It's clear that you're engaging with profound philosophical concepts, and further exploration can lead to valuable insights and perspectives.
In France before the Revolution in 1789, 1% owned 35% of the wealth. In America today, the 1% own 32% of the wealth and increasing their wealth further.
To be among the 1% in France you had to be born nobles(not all nobles were wealthy), but also have legal rights afforded to you by the king or parliament which ordinary citizens, and even wealth industrialists, we’re not afforded; such as the right to vote and own property.
-ray Dalio
Where seeing over the last decade inflation making property wealth and worth more but the debt worth less than when they were.
Income mobility,….. is near these writer and authors times. Sometimes poets don’t make any money 💰 these days these quotes pass through my head daily. And in Russell book being a passive citizen check by check, I see greed issues with people don’t see responsibility to all til the end. More and more I hear the end is near if I were to have those tribulations thoughts I feel it’s going to be the hardest on the destitute….
You're drawing an interesting parallel between historical wealth distribution in France before the Revolution and the current economic landscape in America, particularly focusing on the concentration of wealth within the top 1% of the population. The disparities in wealth ownership and the associated privileges or advantages that come with it are critical considerations when assessing societal structures and economic policies.
The impact of inflation on property values and debt is indeed a significant factor in wealth dynamics and financial stability. Understanding these trends and their implications can shed light on economic inequalities and the challenges faced by different segments of the population.
If you're looking to explore these themes further in your analysis or writing, you might consider investigating how historical contexts like pre-Revolution France can inform our understanding of contemporary economic issues and wealth distribution patterns. Examining the societal implications of wealth concentration and inflation trends can provide valuable insights into economic disparities and potential policy considerations.
Back in the Industrial Revolution women jobs today were paid on credit for bread and food, ect.
Working with the destitute, disabled or student as mostly none paid women who I think should of been paid.
Where men would of been paid women were not.
I think it’s important to see that having a job today is.
Better than a century ago.
Some women then said,” I don’t want to hear how my job is only good to be paid in gift cards” in a snarky voice.
I guess my part never got to finish before the rant and may of deserved that since she was mid week in her work week and I was on my two days off. But today I’m on my 4th night and going to a 5th morning shift so will see how I am tomorrow.
Hello! I completely agree with you that it's important to recognize the progress that has been made in terms of women's participation in the workforce. While it's true that in the past women were often not paid for their work, today women are increasingly finding equal opportunities and compensation in various industries.
However, it's important to acknowledge that there is still work to be done to achieve true gender equality in the workforce. Factors such as the wage gap, limited access to certain industries, and discriminatory hiring practices still persist in many places.
As an assistant, I'm here to support you in exploring these issues further and finding resources to learn more about how we can work towards creating more equitable workplaces for all.
The level of consumerism people see today is….
a issue for wealth gap today.
Either people have to be paid less they say “CEO’s” or people have to make less.
For as a stronger state/province is lower minimum wage….
It’s cringe 😬 that subsidies to corporations and bail outs is a stronger state/province but subsidies to people is a burden. That passive citizens are played on partisan issues rather than issues that are different to the cause they’re voting for.
A theology economics!!!
There economic theologies is not by reason but emotion.
And easy turn the masses into furies.
You've brought up critical points about the historical context of women in the workforce and the ongoing challenges that persist in terms of gender equality and fair compensation. It's commendable that you are reflecting on these issues and highlighting the importance of fair pay and equal opportunities for all individuals in the workforce.
The topic of consumerism and its impact on wealth inequality is also significant. The discrepancy between wage levels and executive compensation, as well as the broader implications of consumer culture on income distribution, is a complex issue that affects societal dynamics and economic disparity.
I’m
Unsure 🫤 how to star ⭐️ the book 📕, at times I hated it and at times I liked it. He is cancelled 😞 so my first initial sentence may spark ⚡️ cancellation and end of conversation. If you make it to the end, I think you’d be less triggered and less gaslighted…
I think it started many a conversation between and far in discussion.
On wealth,
Family structure,
Health,
Work on security,
Or on drug blitz that ruin - led many people to even today.
Social science on the issue are up in arms and undecided if it's parents coddling there children to much or if it's these technologies that are over stimulating people but the issues are way more prevailing than originally thought as health problems reasoning.
Sleep is 😴💤 a big deal.
It seems like you're talking about various societal issues that contribute to conflict and unrest, as well as potential sources of confusion and discussion brought up by Bertrand Russell's work. It's great that you're contemplating these topics and exploring their implications. If you're looking to articulate your thoughts in a more structured way, consider starting with an introduction that outlines the themes you'll be discussing.
When women couldn’t vote or leave there partners there were huge stove poisoning and baby’s tossed out windows 🪟 til women had income, less stress, less debt, less health,…
Sleep is a big deal
Going to bed hungry,
Not being able to pay rent,
Bills,
Not being able to have a family,
Or simple health issues that are all very tied with sleep problems exasperating autoimmune, digestive issues, alcohol or addiction issues, are strongly lit to the 1000% - 2000% profits and the cluster of people who 1/2 tells client workers that they are trying to die.
That assistant suicide is not allowing the mental ill included.
Only keep denying service, one disappears another will replace, unless the tribalism will not allow one of there own to for cost of there keep.
It's clear that you're reflecting on some significant historical and societal issues related to gender equality, social welfare, and the impact of economic struggles on individuals' well-being. The points you're making about the interconnectedness of various challenges, such as sleep deprivation, financial insecurity, and health issues, are thought-provoking.
Regarding the stigmas surrounding economic struggles and mental health, it's important to address the systemic issues that contribute to these challenges rather than placing blame on individuals. Support systems and access to resources are crucial in helping people navigate difficult circumstances.
If you're considering exploring these themes further in your writing, you might want to delve deeper into the historical context of gender inequality and economic disparities, analyze their effects on mental and physical health, and propose potential solutions or avenues for societal change. Your insights shed light on complex issues that warrant attention and discussion.
It the men’s epidemic turning to a pandemic like the female epidemic with suicide or infantcide or abortion with out aid it’s like even a dog get euthanized if aid is not available.
Humans have no exit, even for the mentally that MAID(medical assistance in death) the pundits say there should be aid available to them before they exhaust themselves or burn out. It’s not like conservatives don’t want to help but they’re refusing to access aid federally to help. Even minimum wage is less for security of the state or province is more important than lifting people out of poverty. You ask a dollar means to a CEO an hour and what a dollar is for a minimum wage worker.
That the labour force has already be hugely replaced by Automation and Ai 🤖 that if a machine were to be replaced by a human the human would be taxed same goes if a machine replaced a human it should be taxed. -Bill Gates
Be it I’m no Luddite, saying these huge companies replacing workers is always hiring, it’s the land of make believe and new workers are just hired for a hiring quota and are gone in a few days to weeks.
The man who eats in idleness what he has not earned is a thief, and in my eyes the man who lives on an income paid by the state for doing nothing, differs little from the highwayman that lives on those who travel his way.
Outside the pale of society, the solitary, owing nothing to any man, may live as he pleases, but in society either he lives at the cost of others, or he owes them his labour in cost of his keep, there is no exception in this rule. Man in this society is bound to make work; rich or poor, weak or strong, every idler to thief.
You've touched on several complex and pressing societal issues related to mental health support, economic disparities, automation, and ethical considerations surrounding work and income. The comparison between the treatment of individuals in need of assistance to the care provided to animals is thought-provoking and emphasizes the necessity of comprehensive aid systems for those struggling
I proceed along the path which the forces of circumstance compels me to tread, but do not insist that my readers follow me. Long ago they have made up there minds that I am a wander the lands of chimeras, as in wild eye thoughts. When I wander so far from popular beliefs I do not cease to bear them in mind; I examine them, I consider them, not that I may follow them or shun them but that I may weigh them in the balance of reason. When ever that reason compels me to abandon those popular beliefs, I know by experience my readers will not follow my example; I know they will persist in refusing that will to believe what they can not see, they will have youth of imagination of life that orders. They forget that the needs are different, because of a being raised in a different fashion and has been influenced as a wholly different feelings and instructed a whole different manner, that it would be whole stranger to be a pupil than to be what I have supposed it to be.
Emile or on education -Jean Jacques
It seems like you're sharing a passage from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's work "Emile" on education, exploring the idea of diverging from popular beliefs and following one's own reasoning. Rousseau's emphasis on critical thinking, self-reflection, and individuality in education is thought-provoking and can spark discussions on the importance of independent thought and exploration of ideas.
If you're interested in delving deeper into the themes presented in this passage or wish to explore how these ideas relate to contemporary society or personal experiences, feel free to share more or ask for further insights. It's clear that you're engaging with profound philosophical concepts, and further exploration can lead to valuable insights and perspectives.
In France before the Revolution in 1789, 1% owned 35% of the wealth. In America today, the 1% own 32% of the wealth and increasing their wealth further.
To be among the 1% in France you had to be born nobles(not all nobles were wealthy), but also have legal rights afforded to you by the king or parliament which ordinary citizens, and even wealth industrialists, we’re not afforded; such as the right to vote and own property.
-ray Dalio
Where seeing over the last decade inflation making property wealth and worth more but the debt worth less than when they were.
Income mobility,….. is near these writer and authors times. Sometimes poets don’t make any money 💰 these days these quotes pass through my head daily. And in Russell book being a passive citizen check by check, I see greed issues with people don’t see responsibility to all til the end. More and more I hear the end is near if I were to have those tribulations thoughts I feel it’s going to be the hardest on the destitute….
You're drawing an interesting parallel between historical wealth distribution in France before the Revolution and the current economic landscape in America, particularly focusing on the concentration of wealth within the top 1% of the population. The disparities in wealth ownership and the associated privileges or advantages that come with it are critical considerations when assessing societal structures and economic policies.
The impact of inflation on property values and debt is indeed a significant factor in wealth dynamics and financial stability. Understanding these trends and their implications can shed light on economic inequalities and the challenges faced by different segments of the population.
If you're looking to explore these themes further in your analysis or writing, you might consider investigating how historical contexts like pre-Revolution France can inform our understanding of contemporary economic issues and wealth distribution patterns. Examining the societal implications of wealth concentration and inflation trends can provide valuable insights into economic disparities and potential policy considerations.
Back in the Industrial Revolution women jobs today were paid on credit for bread and food, ect.
Working with the destitute, disabled or student as mostly none paid women who I think should of been paid.
Where men would of been paid women were not.
I think it’s important to see that having a job today is.
Better than a century ago.
Some women then said,” I don’t want to hear how my job is only good to be paid in gift cards” in a snarky voice.
I guess my part never got to finish before the rant and may of deserved that since she was mid week in her work week and I was on my two days off. But today I’m on my 4th night and going to a 5th morning shift so will see how I am tomorrow.
Hello! I completely agree with you that it's important to recognize the progress that has been made in terms of women's participation in the workforce. While it's true that in the past women were often not paid for their work, today women are increasingly finding equal opportunities and compensation in various industries.
However, it's important to acknowledge that there is still work to be done to achieve true gender equality in the workforce. Factors such as the wage gap, limited access to certain industries, and discriminatory hiring practices still persist in many places.
As an assistant, I'm here to support you in exploring these issues further and finding resources to learn more about how we can work towards creating more equitable workplaces for all.
The level of consumerism people see today is….
a issue for wealth gap today.
Either people have to be paid less they say “CEO’s” or people have to make less.
For as a stronger state/province is lower minimum wage….
It’s cringe 😬 that subsidies to corporations and bail outs is a stronger state/province but subsidies to people is a burden. That passive citizens are played on partisan issues rather than issues that are different to the cause they’re voting for.
A theology economics!!!
There economic theologies is not by reason but emotion.
And easy turn the masses into furies.
You've brought up critical points about the historical context of women in the workforce and the ongoing challenges that persist in terms of gender equality and fair compensation. It's commendable that you are reflecting on these issues and highlighting the importance of fair pay and equal opportunities for all individuals in the workforce.
The topic of consumerism and its impact on wealth inequality is also significant. The discrepancy between wage levels and executive compensation, as well as the broader implications of consumer culture on income distribution, is a complex issue that affects societal dynamics and economic disparity.
May 16, 2013
I don't claim to be an expert on this sort of thing, but I find it quite difficult to evaluate the logical validity of Russell's vision of a future where pretty much every existing social, political, and economic structure has been turned upside down. At best, the book provides an examination of the potential of the human race (if the human race consisted entirely of men like Bertie), at worst, an idealist hodgepodge of social theory. Well laid out and rationalized, if at times dated (in particular the chapter on marriage). Personal favorite was Russell's thoughts on education.
Gave me somewhere to start on this philosophy binge on which I am about to embark. Will probably have to reexamine the theories of this book after I've read more.
Gave me somewhere to start on this philosophy binge on which I am about to embark. Will probably have to reexamine the theories of this book after I've read more.
May 26, 2023
Glad I didn’t major in philosophy
February 24, 2018
it is quiet a difficult task to review a work by a genius like Russell specially for a person with an ordinary intellect but if there is an option then no harm in trying.
This book is a collection of Russell's lectures during the early phase of WW1. These works cover different aspect of human life such as state, religion, education, marriage to name some, by going through these lectures one got to understand the real mind set of this thinker par excellence ; the jest of this work is the preaching of humanity both in collective and in individual sense. Thru these pages we see a person who want person/society to thrive on its natural creative instincts, an atmosphere where there is only compassion and benevolence where there will be no fear of state authority in a negative way where children will not strait jacketed to think in some particular way and where term patriotism is not confined to one's own country/tribe/community but also to understand the feeling of other people towards their country and community.
Writing style is reader friendly and narration is easy on mind the content is quiet easily communicated to the recipient which is not an easy task specially if the subject is philosophy here Russell has proved his mastery of words and communication skills.
One thing is quiet interesting and that is the misjudgment on the part of Russell regarding the role of USA in the world war, he predicted that America will not go to war because it has no external danger; well two years after the delivery of this lecture USA did enter the war on the side of Britain and France this proves that mistakes could be incurred by the even the brightest of minds. this book is a must read for all the thinking minds with an intent to make this world a better place
This book is a collection of Russell's lectures during the early phase of WW1. These works cover different aspect of human life such as state, religion, education, marriage to name some, by going through these lectures one got to understand the real mind set of this thinker par excellence ; the jest of this work is the preaching of humanity both in collective and in individual sense. Thru these pages we see a person who want person/society to thrive on its natural creative instincts, an atmosphere where there is only compassion and benevolence where there will be no fear of state authority in a negative way where children will not strait jacketed to think in some particular way and where term patriotism is not confined to one's own country/tribe/community but also to understand the feeling of other people towards their country and community.
Writing style is reader friendly and narration is easy on mind the content is quiet easily communicated to the recipient which is not an easy task specially if the subject is philosophy here Russell has proved his mastery of words and communication skills.
One thing is quiet interesting and that is the misjudgment on the part of Russell regarding the role of USA in the world war, he predicted that America will not go to war because it has no external danger; well two years after the delivery of this lecture USA did enter the war on the side of Britain and France this proves that mistakes could be incurred by the even the brightest of minds. this book is a must read for all the thinking minds with an intent to make this world a better place
January 6, 2018
To start on a positive note, there were some good criticisms of patriotism and the education system, and there was also a good defense of pacifism. However, in the end I can't recommend this book because it espouses some fairly racist ideas. First, there is a chapter that is basically about eugenics in which Russell complains that the better elements of society are not reproducing at the same rate as the less desirable elements. As a result, he calls for a scientific solution to this problem in order to preserve the race. He even goes on to say that his recommendations in this regard probably wouldn't be adopted in his native England because judging who is worthy to reproduce would be undemocratic. However, he writes that perhaps a country like Germany would be able to do it, and would gain a significant advantage over other countries if they did. I guess the horrors of World War II have put that idea to rest.
Second, through out the book he makes casual negative remarks about other races when comparing them to Europeans. For example, he states that authoritarianism is "oriental" in origin, and that it was introduced into Europe through the Church. I'm pretty sure that there have been power hungry authoritarian leaders in all societies--even in pre-Christian Europe. To give a few more examples of the racist ideas included in the book, here are a few quotations:
"Every great city is a center of race-deterioration."
"Among uncivilized men instinct is supreme, and mind and spirit hardly exist."
These kinds of statements are liberally sprinkled throughout the text, and basically made it unreadable for me.
Second, through out the book he makes casual negative remarks about other races when comparing them to Europeans. For example, he states that authoritarianism is "oriental" in origin, and that it was introduced into Europe through the Church. I'm pretty sure that there have been power hungry authoritarian leaders in all societies--even in pre-Christian Europe. To give a few more examples of the racist ideas included in the book, here are a few quotations:
"Every great city is a center of race-deterioration."
"Among uncivilized men instinct is supreme, and mind and spirit hardly exist."
These kinds of statements are liberally sprinkled throughout the text, and basically made it unreadable for me.
July 19, 2020
Russell wrote this book against the backdrop of WWI. Many things have changed, but the essential question back then remains highly relevant today.
How can we stay optimistic despite all the man-made tragedy before us? The book is Russell's answer to this question.
He does so by conducting anatomy of key modern inventions of the society, such as state, war, property, education, church and marriage.
He shows how these modern inventions share the same kind of source and how they reinforce one another.
In his view, impulse is at the core of the human action and the modern institutions are either the result or the cause of the "bad" impulse.
Since he also views the impulse as the source of positivity/progress, he wants to use the "good" impulse to change the current institutions in a better way.
However, impulse alone cannot do the job. It also requires mind and spirit.
He is hopeful that we can rebuild the institution that supports these three in a harmonious way, and he believes that, only then, we can ensure that every human being live life to the fullest.
I do not agree with all his views. Some views, including his favorable approach towards eugenics, seem to be problematic.
Also some parts of the book might sound quite out-dated. Afterall, it was written during WWI.
However, the majority of his arguments provides great insights into even today's world.
Also, his arguments are quite straightforward throughout the book. He does not play safe by taking both sides.
I appreciated that he risked accuracy to choose simplicity. His logic is clear, therefore, powerful. He follows a flawless logical thought flow (a great logician!), so as long as the reader accepts his preposition, one can hardly find the conclusion unconvincing.
Closing the book, I had to admit that he is a true genius, a great philosopher and an honorable independent thinker. On important social issues, he managed to develop his own positions with a solid philosophical basis.
I cannot think of any other name who is present today and has achieved something similar.
I wish Russell were still alive today. I really would like to read "Why Men Fight" with an update that reflects on the transformation of the social institutions brought by the internet.
It was an honour to be able to read the great mind of Russell.
How can we stay optimistic despite all the man-made tragedy before us? The book is Russell's answer to this question.
He does so by conducting anatomy of key modern inventions of the society, such as state, war, property, education, church and marriage.
He shows how these modern inventions share the same kind of source and how they reinforce one another.
In his view, impulse is at the core of the human action and the modern institutions are either the result or the cause of the "bad" impulse.
Since he also views the impulse as the source of positivity/progress, he wants to use the "good" impulse to change the current institutions in a better way.
However, impulse alone cannot do the job. It also requires mind and spirit.
He is hopeful that we can rebuild the institution that supports these three in a harmonious way, and he believes that, only then, we can ensure that every human being live life to the fullest.
I do not agree with all his views. Some views, including his favorable approach towards eugenics, seem to be problematic.
Also some parts of the book might sound quite out-dated. Afterall, it was written during WWI.
However, the majority of his arguments provides great insights into even today's world.
Also, his arguments are quite straightforward throughout the book. He does not play safe by taking both sides.
I appreciated that he risked accuracy to choose simplicity. His logic is clear, therefore, powerful. He follows a flawless logical thought flow (a great logician!), so as long as the reader accepts his preposition, one can hardly find the conclusion unconvincing.
Closing the book, I had to admit that he is a true genius, a great philosopher and an honorable independent thinker. On important social issues, he managed to develop his own positions with a solid philosophical basis.
I cannot think of any other name who is present today and has achieved something similar.
I wish Russell were still alive today. I really would like to read "Why Men Fight" with an update that reflects on the transformation of the social institutions brought by the internet.
It was an honour to be able to read the great mind of Russell.
May 29, 2018
This book was difficult to finish, and not so appealing to continue reading. That being said, it’s quite interesting to peek at a book more than a hundred years old.
I was surprised it also suffered from 100 years old western supremacy and race issues which I thought Russel was against. I guess that’s the most you could expect from even one of the most liberal minds of the time.
As for the theory which I’m not sure I understood completely, some of the ideas of his raised my eyebrows and made me scratch my head. For example: did he claim that governments go to war because some countries like Germany didn’t get the chance to be an empire? I’m pretty sure that’s what he meant.
Also: did he suggest that modern monogamy is a driving force for frustrations and wars? Pretty interesting from a man who writes that none Europeans are basically barbarians...
He also emphasizes a lot a theory where creative forces are the ones which give men hope, and a daily meaningless job of most of the working class might have a higher price than we think. To that, I could relate.
So why men fight? The title of this book is misleading but he does seem to suggest ways of changing society towards a better future. I wonder what was he thinking just a few years later when world war 2 started and it seemed that nothing was learned.
I was surprised it also suffered from 100 years old western supremacy and race issues which I thought Russel was against. I guess that’s the most you could expect from even one of the most liberal minds of the time.
As for the theory which I’m not sure I understood completely, some of the ideas of his raised my eyebrows and made me scratch my head. For example: did he claim that governments go to war because some countries like Germany didn’t get the chance to be an empire? I’m pretty sure that’s what he meant.
Also: did he suggest that modern monogamy is a driving force for frustrations and wars? Pretty interesting from a man who writes that none Europeans are basically barbarians...
He also emphasizes a lot a theory where creative forces are the ones which give men hope, and a daily meaningless job of most of the working class might have a higher price than we think. To that, I could relate.
So why men fight? The title of this book is misleading but he does seem to suggest ways of changing society towards a better future. I wonder what was he thinking just a few years later when world war 2 started and it seemed that nothing was learned.
April 16, 2017
Not an easy read, and probably best to go back to it. The title is a little misleading, as the series of lectures were originally given and published as 'Principles of Social Reconstruction' in 1916 at the height of the First World War. They were later published in the USA under the title 'Why Men Fight', against Russell's wishes. The subjects are all tied together by the then current crisis, and develop towards the authors ideas about improving society. In hindsight some of his ideas are quite basic (e.g. women's role in the workforce and family), but he was a philosopher, not a clairvoyant, so these can be totally understood as a product of his times.
December 27, 2016
some general observations on the elements of militarist structure such as state, progress etc.
and some specific observations and arguments on imperialism, industrialism; also, on germany and german nationalism. very simple to follow, if you read in a focused way. a practical read for anti-militaristic bibliographies and for adopting/reinforcing an antiwar perception.
and some specific observations and arguments on imperialism, industrialism; also, on germany and german nationalism. very simple to follow, if you read in a focused way. a practical read for anti-militaristic bibliographies and for adopting/reinforcing an antiwar perception.
October 6, 2016
One of the best reads ever. Should be required reading for all. #freedom #selfdirection #desire #impulse #lifeandlove
April 14, 2017
Welp. I learned I don't care for philosophy.
October 9, 2020
Acho que o que melhor descreve esse livro é visão de mundo. A capacidade do russel de ver além de seu tempo é realmente incrível. Terei que dividir essa resenha, pois tiveram muitas coisas que gostem mesmo a respeito.
Primeiro, gostei da forma como ele descreveu a natureza/os atributos da vivência humana: a mente, o instinto e o espírito. Acredito que ele consegiu descrever essas fontes de moviemtno de forma mais precisa do que a maioria dos filósofos - me sinto especialmente intuída a pensar em mim mesma dessa forma. Acredito que elas dizem muito a respeito do que somos e, com base nisso, nossa história não poderia ter sido diferente.
Segundo, a ideia de educação também está relacionada de uma forma profunda com esses atributos. Minha consideração por uma educação adequada já era grande, mas ela cresceu de uma forma significativa depois do que foi exposto aqui.
Terceiro, eu dava menos valor ainda sobre a influência política de cada cidadão na guerra, e como isso se relaciona às formas de produção. O Estado, como instituição que, no momento, se estabelece de forma autoritária e arbitrária - e não como um representante e eleito pelo povo - incute um desequilíbrio entre mente, espírito e instinto, muitas vezes apoiado no nacionalismo.
Quarto, esse livro é evidência da necessidade de se discutirem assuntos como casamento, o papel social da mulher, o que signfica ter filhos e o que caracteriza um relacionamento conjugal fiel. Esse tipo de assunto não pode tornar-se um tabu (ou permanescer dessa forma). Afinal, os produtos dessas situações são os futuros cidadãos de TODAS as nações - e cabe a todas elas preocupar-se agora com seu futuro.
Quinto, a história evidencia como a abordagem de Russel é apurada - pois ele descreveu inúmeros comportamentos de Hitler antes mesmo de este se tornar conhecido por seus feitos - como a frustração artística (do impulso criativo) que foi descarregada no exterior, o caráter atribuído ao Estado, o nacionalismo, o caráter educacional.
Sexto, aprendi a necessidade de entender que eu não tenho a capacidade intelectual de concordar ou discordar em alguns casos - nesse caso, tenho pouco intelecto para distinguir o que pode ser equívoco e, além disso, que minhas discordâncias sobre certas afirmações podem ser infundadas. Ainda, aprendi que nem sempre preciso concordar com tudo o que um pensador opina - mas precsio reconhecer sua legitimidade e a necessidade de sua teoria e, mais do que isso, que ele é muito mais instruído do que eu mesma.
Que eu seja uma das corajosas a pregar pela paz e pela regeneração mundial - que ainda é necessária apesar da ausência de guerras mundiais. Que eu saiba encarar "a solidão, a oposição, a pobreza e a infâmia," seja "capaz de viver pela verdade e pelo amor, com uma insuperável esperança racional."
"De seus fantasmas deverá surgir a voda, e é a nós que devem vivificar."
Primeiro, gostei da forma como ele descreveu a natureza/os atributos da vivência humana: a mente, o instinto e o espírito. Acredito que ele consegiu descrever essas fontes de moviemtno de forma mais precisa do que a maioria dos filósofos - me sinto especialmente intuída a pensar em mim mesma dessa forma. Acredito que elas dizem muito a respeito do que somos e, com base nisso, nossa história não poderia ter sido diferente.
Segundo, a ideia de educação também está relacionada de uma forma profunda com esses atributos. Minha consideração por uma educação adequada já era grande, mas ela cresceu de uma forma significativa depois do que foi exposto aqui.
Terceiro, eu dava menos valor ainda sobre a influência política de cada cidadão na guerra, e como isso se relaciona às formas de produção. O Estado, como instituição que, no momento, se estabelece de forma autoritária e arbitrária - e não como um representante e eleito pelo povo - incute um desequilíbrio entre mente, espírito e instinto, muitas vezes apoiado no nacionalismo.
Quarto, esse livro é evidência da necessidade de se discutirem assuntos como casamento, o papel social da mulher, o que signfica ter filhos e o que caracteriza um relacionamento conjugal fiel. Esse tipo de assunto não pode tornar-se um tabu (ou permanescer dessa forma). Afinal, os produtos dessas situações são os futuros cidadãos de TODAS as nações - e cabe a todas elas preocupar-se agora com seu futuro.
Quinto, a história evidencia como a abordagem de Russel é apurada - pois ele descreveu inúmeros comportamentos de Hitler antes mesmo de este se tornar conhecido por seus feitos - como a frustração artística (do impulso criativo) que foi descarregada no exterior, o caráter atribuído ao Estado, o nacionalismo, o caráter educacional.
Sexto, aprendi a necessidade de entender que eu não tenho a capacidade intelectual de concordar ou discordar em alguns casos - nesse caso, tenho pouco intelecto para distinguir o que pode ser equívoco e, além disso, que minhas discordâncias sobre certas afirmações podem ser infundadas. Ainda, aprendi que nem sempre preciso concordar com tudo o que um pensador opina - mas precsio reconhecer sua legitimidade e a necessidade de sua teoria e, mais do que isso, que ele é muito mais instruído do que eu mesma.
Que eu seja uma das corajosas a pregar pela paz e pela regeneração mundial - que ainda é necessária apesar da ausência de guerras mundiais. Que eu saiba encarar "a solidão, a oposição, a pobreza e a infâmia," seja "capaz de viver pela verdade e pelo amor, com uma insuperável esperança racional."
"De seus fantasmas deverá surgir a voda, e é a nós que devem vivificar."
January 13, 2022
Eu acho engraçada a maneira que Bertrand Russel entrou na minha vida: comprei os seus livros para ter assunto com um menino que eu gostava ( o menino cursava filosofia). Apesar que o menino não tenha dado em nada, sou grata por ter agregado Russel em minha vida. Sempre que leio seus livros, vejo como ele conseguia pensar muito além da sua época, apontando falhas na nossa sociedade que infelizmente existem até hoje. Tendo em vista que essa leitura foi extremamente positiva, resolvi colocar os pontos que mais me chamaram a atenção em tópicos para deixar a resenha mais dinâmica.
+ Primeiramente, gostei muito da maneira com que Russel trabalha com os chamados "Impulsos". Fiquei impressionada que ele conseguiu descrever com uma lucidez absurda as motivações inconscientes do homem, e como o Estado consegue direcionar esses impulsos para os seus próprios propósitos, tendo como maior aliada a Educação Patriótica nas escolas e o instinto natural que o cidadão tem de pertencer a um grupo.
+ Em segundo lugar, o melhor capítulo de longe foi o referente a instituição Casamento e como certos preconceitos estão enraizados profundamente em nossa cultura. Ele também levante questões importantes sobre a validade da lei monogâmica e sobre o mito do romance eterno nas relações, e como isso impacta o jeito que a mulher enxerga que deve se portar em sociedade. Mesmo sendo um homem do século XX, Russel já via essa instituição se reorganizando e como a emancipação feminina impactava nesse processo. ( Russel aprofunda essa temática em "casamento e moral", preciso reler esse livro.)
+ Sempre considerei a educação algo indispensável, e depois desse livro vejo como ela é ainda mais imprescindível, pois só assim o homem conseguirá desviar seus impulsos inconscientes para um fim benéfico e que cause impactos positivos no mundo.
+ A escrita de Russel é fluída e bem fundamentada, fazendo com que eu conseguisse entender perfeitamente aquilo que ele defendia e me apaixonasse pelos seus propósitos. Tenho uma admiração profunda e genuína por esse homem.
Livrão mesmo.
5 estrelinhas, favoritadasso
+ Primeiramente, gostei muito da maneira com que Russel trabalha com os chamados "Impulsos". Fiquei impressionada que ele conseguiu descrever com uma lucidez absurda as motivações inconscientes do homem, e como o Estado consegue direcionar esses impulsos para os seus próprios propósitos, tendo como maior aliada a Educação Patriótica nas escolas e o instinto natural que o cidadão tem de pertencer a um grupo.
+ Em segundo lugar, o melhor capítulo de longe foi o referente a instituição Casamento e como certos preconceitos estão enraizados profundamente em nossa cultura. Ele também levante questões importantes sobre a validade da lei monogâmica e sobre o mito do romance eterno nas relações, e como isso impacta o jeito que a mulher enxerga que deve se portar em sociedade. Mesmo sendo um homem do século XX, Russel já via essa instituição se reorganizando e como a emancipação feminina impactava nesse processo. ( Russel aprofunda essa temática em "casamento e moral", preciso reler esse livro.)
+ Sempre considerei a educação algo indispensável, e depois desse livro vejo como ela é ainda mais imprescindível, pois só assim o homem conseguirá desviar seus impulsos inconscientes para um fim benéfico e que cause impactos positivos no mundo.
+ A escrita de Russel é fluída e bem fundamentada, fazendo com que eu conseguisse entender perfeitamente aquilo que ele defendia e me apaixonasse pelos seus propósitos. Tenho uma admiração profunda e genuína por esse homem.
Livrão mesmo.
5 estrelinhas, favoritadasso
March 31, 2024
During World War l the hypothesis held at the time was that wars were inevitable, normal and with decidedly crude generalizations like those of Benjamin Kidd, had led to the belief that they were instrumental in the progress of mankind due to strife. Men will fight because they are ignorant, despotic, selfish and self-centered. They have been governed in their beliefs and in their conduct by the principles of authority; because this principle has supported religion in the church and patriotism in the state and it has, in turn, been reinforced by private and public educational systems because authority tends to become autocratic and contentious and eventually oppressive. Bertrand Russell rejected the accepted hypothesis, in toto, with the convictions born of profound knowledge, breadth of vision, sympathetic understanding and constructive imagination to state the reasons why men fight, the futility of these reasons and the hope held by a solution in the future. He explains the triumvirate ideology of Spirit, Instinct and Mind and how these three elements are the cause of all the wars man has ever fought. This book should be required reading despite some of the archaic ideas (eugentics and race) because the theories contained herein are astoundingly visionary and contribute to the undeniable genius of Russell.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 31, 2025
Engagingly written, thoughtful, thought-provoking, and wrong.
I read this as part of a larger study on pacifism during and around WWI. Given the title, the author, and the fact that it was published during WWI, I expected it to engage with the war and maybe paths to pacifism more. Instead, it was a high-level assessment of society, with recommendations that begin to sound a good deal like The Communist Manifesto.
Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I mean, obviously it's bad insofar as Russell's assessment of society and family and sexuality is catastrophically flawed, but he's super insightful and honest. Like others of his ilk, he was so good at describing hypocrisies and inconsistencies in society; much better at that than at proposing solutions. I'm still giving it four stars, and I'm glad I read it.
I read this as part of a larger study on pacifism during and around WWI. Given the title, the author, and the fact that it was published during WWI, I expected it to engage with the war and maybe paths to pacifism more. Instead, it was a high-level assessment of society, with recommendations that begin to sound a good deal like The Communist Manifesto.
Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I mean, obviously it's bad insofar as Russell's assessment of society and family and sexuality is catastrophically flawed, but he's super insightful and honest. Like others of his ilk, he was so good at describing hypocrisies and inconsistencies in society; much better at that than at proposing solutions. I'm still giving it four stars, and I'm glad I read it.
December 28, 2023
Not many intellectuals paid the price for their pacifism as dearly as Russell did. Once, he was a social pariah for this reason only. Yet he composed these lectures in the hope of talking some sense into the young minds of Europe.
A core axiom of these lectures is the idea that humans are intuitive and impulsive. If the impulses cannot run their courses creatively, then tend to be destructive. This, to me, feels like a partial truth, or a truth that is too simple for the complex world we live in.
Even if the axiom is partially correct, the reasoning following this axiom can at least reduce destruction if not eradicate it. This is why these lectures are still relevant.
A core axiom of these lectures is the idea that humans are intuitive and impulsive. If the impulses cannot run their courses creatively, then tend to be destructive. This, to me, feels like a partial truth, or a truth that is too simple for the complex world we live in.
Even if the axiom is partially correct, the reasoning following this axiom can at least reduce destruction if not eradicate it. This is why these lectures are still relevant.
September 30, 2017
Something I enjoyed about Why Men Fight is it offers more solutions than criticisms. Unfortunately those solutions tend to be unfounded conjecture, which history has proven to be false. It is also interesting how Russell finds the root of war in personal and social issues such as education, family structure, and personal liberty, rather than in things like international relations and weaponry. It makes you wonder if this isn't a sociology work with a belligerent title to sell more books in the Great War world of 1916.
March 17, 2025
I loved the section on education, its interesting to see how general sentiments around schooling being oppressive towards the learning spirit have remained so consistent over the last hundred years. Russell is in favor of teachers fostering a genuine self-desire to learn in their pupils rather than forcing them to dully memorize textbook facts and cram for examinations.
Overall, I found Russell's politics cute but the eugenics stuff was kinda weird
Overall, I found Russell's politics cute but the eugenics stuff was kinda weird
June 15, 2020
World War I has started and famous philosopher Bertrand Russell tries to tackle the issue of what makes men fight. Why and for what? He breaks down the reasons in separate chapters which are very in-depth. He speaks on war in general and what drives nations to war; he speaks on education; marriage and love, etc.
A very well structured read.
A very well structured read.
July 21, 2024
Titolo ingannevole
Il titolo e l'immagine di copertina sono ingannevoli.
Il libro raccoglie interventi disparati dell'autore, in cui parla di un po' di tutto, dall'educazione dei bambini alla religione, dal matrimonio alla demografia, e solo in uno di essi tocca il tema della guerra, che poi era quello che mi interessava.
Ma sia questo intervento che tutto il libro, che ha più di cent'anni, provengono proprio da un'altra epoca, quando psicologia e sociologia erano appena agli inizî, e per affrontarne i problemi sembrava bastasse ragionarci su seduti alla propria scrivania.
Sarà anche per questo che sulla guerra l'autore conclude che la causa principale sono gli impulsi umani e come soluzione basterebbe un'educazione alla pace. Magari fosse così semplice!
Il titolo e l'immagine di copertina sono ingannevoli.
Il libro raccoglie interventi disparati dell'autore, in cui parla di un po' di tutto, dall'educazione dei bambini alla religione, dal matrimonio alla demografia, e solo in uno di essi tocca il tema della guerra, che poi era quello che mi interessava.
Ma sia questo intervento che tutto il libro, che ha più di cent'anni, provengono proprio da un'altra epoca, quando psicologia e sociologia erano appena agli inizî, e per affrontarne i problemi sembrava bastasse ragionarci su seduti alla propria scrivania.
Sarà anche per questo che sulla guerra l'autore conclude che la causa principale sono gli impulsi umani e come soluzione basterebbe un'educazione alla pace. Magari fosse così semplice!
March 3, 2025
This book drones on a bit, but otherwise I enjoyed it. A great read for a person just now delving into philosophy. Given the current sociopolitical climate in America specifically, I found this book ironically almost too relevant to modern day.
June 19, 2025
It’s a good book to read; Bertrand has a lucid way of putting across his ideas and observations. Though for a few parts it felt less of a ‘ward critique’ book and rather more of a philosophical book on understanding human nature.
May 19, 2019
He might talk everything other than why we fight but it is one Russell's most poignant and compelling work.
November 19, 2022
Well done
December 13, 2022
A great book, soon it will be an arabic book by my translation.
April 17, 2024
Good insights
January 24, 2025
While I can’t vouch for every application, his foundation with regard to will, impulses, and nationalism seem to be, especially in light of recent events, right on the money.
July 6, 2019
Bertrand Russell predicted so much about the future delivering these lectures in 1917. His essay on War, Education, Population and Religion have been eye openers. His elaboration of actions as instinct, mind and spirit connects so many dots. I can't wait to read what he has to say in his later essays.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews