What I Believe

by Bertrand Russell

Along with Why I Am Not a Christian , this essay must rank as the most articulate example of Russell's famed atheism. It is also one of the most notorious. Used as evidence in a 1940 court case in which Russell was declared unfit to teach college-level philosophy, What I Believe was to become one of his most defining works. The ideas contained within were and are controversial, contentious and - to the religious - downright blasphemous. A remarkable work, it remains the best concise introduction to Russell's thought.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Religion, Essays, Atheism, Science, Audiobook

72 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1925

About the author

Bertrand 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."

Reviews

[بثينة العيسى · Rating 5 out of 5]

يكتب برتراند رَسل بلغة نظيفة، شفافة مثل سطحٍ زجاجي، وبقدرة نافذة على التشخيص وقراءة العالم. أتفق مع من قال بأنه لكي نكتب بشكل جيد، ينبغي أن نفكر بوضوح. برتراند رَسل نموذج ممتاز.

[Kevin · Rating 5 out of 5]

“The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge.”

I wish my brain had the capability of projecting a little hologram of Bertrand Russell reciting What I Believe every time someone questioned my atheism. That way I could yell, “RELEASE THE KRAKEN!” and then sit back and watch all the self-righteous sanctimony vaporize under the concentrated beam of Bertrand’s irrefutable acumen.

“...nature is neither good nor bad, and is not concerned to make us happy or unhappy. All such philosophies spring from self-importance, and are best corrected by a little astronomy.”

[J.L. Sutton · Rating 4 out of 5]

“I cannot, therefore, prove that my view of the good life is right; I can only state my view, and hope that as many as possible will agree. My view is this: The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge.”



Much of Bertrand Russell's philosophical thought is crystallized in his 1925 collection, What I Believe. Among other things, Russell is concerned with the rational attainment of the good life. To that end, he extols kindness, respect and rationality. His essay, especially "Why I Am Not a Christian" was used against him in 1940 to show he was unfit to teach college philosophy. What must have seemed blasphemous at the time, feels timely and relevant.

"It is for us to determine the good life, not for Nature - not even for Nature personified as God.”

[Ben · Rating 5 out of 5]

“What I believe” is a fairly small book in size, but vastly beneficial in content. Like the titles suggests, Bertrand Russell explores his wide and most profound beliefs. Not only religiously, but also economically and socially. I have to say that it is hard to disagree with the man. He has a way of projecting his views in a way that is both simple and effective. His views are to be studied by men of expertise. Meanwhile, by a simple contemplation, one can simply see where he comes from. For example his ideas regarding “The good life” are brilliant. "The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge". This is an impressively accurate statement. I won’t try to explain what he means, because he does that largely better; Besides, I do not want to rob anyone of his immensely enjoyable and thought-provoking prose. This is to say that Bertrand Russell is a MUST-READ.

[Betül · Rating 4 out of 5]

My thoughts about the roles of faith and religion in mankind's life are opposite to Russell's, but reading this man always gives me a great joy. This book is mainly related to sources and methods for a good life. Russell thinks that the scientific education is the best weapon with which we can transform impulsive, fearful and timid children to loving, humanistic and courageous adults. Isn't that admirable: "A good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge."

[مريم المنصوري · Rating 4 out of 5]

‏"أنا شخصياً لا أشعر أن أي شخص إنساني بحق يستطيع الإيمان بعذاب أبدي".

[Bettie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Please don't mix these objects up.
Trump: 'Get ready Russia,' missiles will be headed to Syria

Description: Along with Why I Am Not a Christian, this essay must rank as the most articulate example of Russell's famed atheism. It is also one of the most notorious. Used as evidence in a 1940 court case in which Russell was declared unfit to teach college-level philosophy, What I Believe was to become one of his most defining works. The ideas contained within were and are controversial, contentious and - to the religious - downright blasphemous. A remarkable work, it remains the best concise introduction to Russell's thought.

[Ipsa · Rating 3 out of 5]

There's something beautiful about the way Russell holds onto the glorious "individual" while condemning the noxious careerist individualism engendered by an all pervading bourgeois consciousness. Grappling with the concepts of morality, religion, good life, moral rules and happiness, he makes his disdain for the categorising tendencies of moral philosophy abundantly clear; the influence of Freud is also very visible. Russell believes that the current morality is a curious blend of utilitarianism and superstition, but the superstitious part had the stronger hold, as is natural, since superstition is the origin of moral rules. Desires are good or bad only in how they affect us and the people around us; theoretical ethics is superfluous. Aided by science and good education, these desires can be mitigated and refined, and the quality of life improved.

Philosophy of Value is one place where humans are greater than nature, like Russell says, "in this realm we're kings, and we debase our kingship if we bow down to nature." This got me thinking: how valuation is deeply violent in itself, because it's deeply human; when we assign the value of God to Nature, for example, and bow down to it, it gives away our deepest desire for utter annihilation, kill individuality, and go berzerk! No wonder then, a species so possessed by death and destruction would need morality to have a metaphysical backbone.

Now everything aside, the part that reeled me in the most was Russell's discussion on Salvation. One of the defects of religion, Russell says, is individualism. Traditionally, the religious life was a duologue between the soul and God --- which was possible for an individual regardless of the state of the community. Christianity, for eg, arose amid the tyranny of the Roman Empire, where the helpless masses adopted the view that the individual may be perfect in an imperfect world. Contrasting this with Plato's The Republic, we see that his discussion on the good life and justice describes a whole community. It's no coincidence because Plato lived in a republic where individual freedom could be taken for granted. But as soon as Greece lost freedom, Stoicism arose which is also highly individualistic. The idea of individual salvation, thus, becomes impossible as soon as we escape from a very narrow concept of a good life. Love, being the great equaliser, couldn't exist in such a society. The oppressor has to persuade themselves that the oppressed is of an inferior clay; and hence, also the neo-liberal emphasis on untethered individualism.

The atheism of Russell is blazing in this little book, a fire contained and yet made brighter by the sheer force of his lucid words and remarkable clarity. This is a deeply human work; a work that gives humans their due while also not losing sight of the limitations of human reach. Though naive at times, it was a delight to read!

[Mohammed Orabi · Rating 2 out of 5]

هو عبارة عن كتاب يجمع مجموعة من مقالات راسل حول الدين والاخلاق والفلسفة .. يتكون بشكل عام من اربع اقسام .. القسم الاول يحتوي على كتاب راسل الصغير " ما الذي أؤمن به" والذي يشرح فيه رؤيته الفلسفية للأخلاق والأنسان والطبيعة .. القسم الثاني مخصص لمقالات الدين ، ويحتوى على ست مقالات : " لماذا لست مسيحياً " ، " هل قدم الدين مساهمات مفيدة للحضارة " ، " من هو اللاأدري ؟ " ، " هل ننجو من الموت " ، " إيمان العقلاني " ، " عبادة الانسان الحر " .. القسم الثالث مخصص لقضايا الحرية ويحتوى على مقالتين : " التفكير الحر والبروباغندا الرسمية " ، " الحرية والجامعات " ... القسم الرابع والاخير مقالين ساخرين : " الناس الطيبون " ، " كيف تصبح عبقرياً " .. ذلك ما جاء في مقدمة الكتاب كتعريف بسيط لمحتواه اما ما وجدته فكان غير ذلك ..
وبالتالى و مع الاسف لم يضف لي اي شي جديد تقريبا ، ربما ذلك نابع من تربص لي من اولي صفحاته نتيجه لتوقعي للاتجاة او الفكرة الاساسية للكتاب ، ربما يكون توجه الكاتب الى أثارة التساؤلات بدل من محاولة طرح ادلة " منطقية " تدعم الافكار التى ناقشها ، ونتيجة لذلك كانت المحصلة النهائية غير مرضية بالنسبة لي
هو يتحدث عن ان الاديان هي محور كل شر وان اختفت جميع الاديان سواء السماوية او غيرها من العالم فيعتقد انه سيكون امر افضل للبشرية .. يتغني ويلعب كثيرا على وتر محاكم التفتيش وما فعلته من قبل واستغلال بعض رجال الدين لمناصبهم وتاثيرهم على الناس لاجل مصالح معينة ، يذكر بعض امثلة ويحاول ان يضعها في اطار البراهين على صدق ما يقول رغم ان اغلب تلك الامثلة قد تكون صالحة او منطقية لو ذكرت في موضع اخر ، اعتقد ان نجمة من اجل بعض الاراء التى اوافقه عليها والتى كانت اغلبها تتعلق بالقيم والاخلاق ونجمة اخري من اجل محاولته ان يكون حياديا في بعض المواقف التى كانت تتعارض مع افكاره سيكون تقييم منطقيا للغاية بالنسبة لي

[Yazeed AlMogren · Rating 4 out of 5]

هذا الكتاب يحوي مقالات تختصر بشكل بسيط وواضح أفكار وتوجهات المفكر برتراند راسل، أعجبني اختيار المترجم للمقالات وجودة ترجمته لها

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredibly good well written set of essays that flow together. If you are a human being and have your basic needs met and have time to reflect about yourself and the nature of being human, these essays should be required reading. 'Love with knowledge' is our guide for morality. The Euthyprho dilemma explained in terms of God's fiat is the first time I've ever really understood it.

I still hear the special pleading arguments which were outlined in this book used by people today even after they have been shot down in this book. 'Everything that is needs a cause, therefore God (or Bob or the Super AI) must exist'. Who created God (or Bob, or the Super AI)? We can just as easily say the universe has always existed or even more intelligently not make a statement on what we don't know beyond the best facts known. Oh, how I hate the argument that morality proves the existence of God and the other tired old tropes all of which are refuted in this book.

There was one argument that I found silly. Russell criticizes Jesus cursing the fig tree. Spinoza had dismissed that 250 years earlier, because as Spinoza had said it is obviously an allegory about the nation of Israel. I read other modern books by atheist that think as Russell did about that. I just find that silly and weak.

We, after our basic needs are met, will always want to know about our place in the universe and books like this one gives us more guidance than most.

[الزهراء الصلاحي · Rating 3 out of 5]

من الواضح أن نهاية العام ستكون مليئة بالتجارب الجديدة وخطوات نحو القراءة في مجالات جديدة ✌🏻

[Mohammed omran · Rating 3 out of 5]

في عامه التسعين أجرى مقابلة وجه فيها كذلك نصيحة يراها مهمة للأجيال اللاحقة بعد آلاف السنين.


ثلاثة مشاعر، بسيطة لكنها غامرة بقوة، تحكمت في حياتي: اللهفة للحب، البحث عن المعرفة، والشفقة التي لا تطاق لمعاناة البشر. هذه المشاعر، مثل العواصف العظيمة، عصفت بي هنا وهناك، في مسار صعب المراس، على محيط عميق من الكرب، يصل إلى حافة اليأس البعيدة.




سعيت للحب، أولًا، لأنه يأتي بالبهجة الشديدة – والبهجة شيء عظيم لدرجة أنني مستعد أن أضحى بباقي عمري من أجل ساعات قليلة من هذه السعادة. سعيت


إليه، ثانيًا، لأنه يخفف الوحدة – هذه الوحدة الشنيعة التي تجعل الوعي المرتعش للشخص ينظر من على حافة العالم إلى الجحيم البارد المبهم الخالي من الحياة. سعيت إليه، أخيرًا، لأنه بالتوحد مع الحب رأيت، بصورة صوفية، الرؤية المتنبئة للجنة التي تخيلها القديسين والشعراء. هذا ما كنت أسعى إليه وبرغم أنه ربما يبدو جيدًا جدًا بالنسبة لحياة بشرية، هذا هو ما وجدته، أخيرًا.

بشغف مساوي سعيت إلى المعرفة. تمنيت أن أفهم قلوب البشر. تمنيت أن أعرف لماذا تلمع النجوم. وحاولت أن أدرك القوة الفيثاغورية التي تسيطر فيها الأرقام على تدفق الأشياء. قليل من هذا، وليس الكثير، استطعت أن أحققه. الحب والمعرفة، بحسب ما كانا ممكنين، قاداني إلى أعلى في السماء. لكن الشفقة دائمًا ما أعادتني ثانية إلى الأرض. أصداء أصوات البكاء من الألم تتردد في قلبي. الأطفال في المجاعات، الضحايا الذين يعذبون بواسطة الظالمين، العجائز العاجزين الذين يعتبرهم أولادهم عبئًا مكروهًا، والعالم الكامل من الوحدة، والفقر، والألم، كل هذا يسخر مما يجب أن تكون عليه الحياة البشرية. أنا أتوق إلى تخفيف الشر، لكني لا أستطيع، وأعاني أنا أيضًا. هذه كانت حياتي. وأراها تستحق أن تُعاش، وبكل سعادة سأعيشها مرة أخرى لو منحت لي الفرصة.

[Xavier Patiño · Rating 4 out of 5]

"The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge."

The limited knowledge that I have on how life began on our planet inspires in me a deep appreciation for all living things -- the extreme complexity of every crawling insect, every flying bird, every blooming flower and every towering tree.

We inhabit a tiny rock that revolves around a relatively small star, and this star also holds in its gravitational grasp other spheres and giant balls of gas. All this exists together in a cloudy aggregate of stars and nebulas and planets which humans call the Milky Way. This too is just but a tiny fragment in the immensity of the universe.

As I type this, my reverie is broken by the laughter of my daughter and son, and I realize how much I love them, how special they are to me, how my life is defined by their happiness. Love and knowledge are, for me at least, the key to the good life.

[Tavan T · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bertrand Russell is by far one of the most enlightening thinkers who have ever lived. Always worth the read. Love him or hate him, the man always presented a good argument.

Most notable quote:

“In the spectacle of Death, in the endurance of intolerable pain, and in the irrevocableness of a vanished past, there is a sacredness, an overpowering awe, a feeling of the vastness, the depth, the inexhaustible mystery of existence, in which, as by some strange marriage of pain, the sufferer is bound to the world by bonds of sorrow. In these moments of insight, we lose all eagerness of temporary desire, all struggling and striving for petty ends, all care for the little trivial things that, to a superficial view, make up the common life of day by day; we see, surrounding the narrow raft illumined by the flickering light of human comradeship, the dark ocean on whose rolling waves we toss for a brief hour; from the great night without, a chill blast breaks in upon our refuge; all the loneliness of humanity amid hostile forces is concentrated upon the individual soul, which must struggle alone, with what of courage it can command, against the whole weight of a universe that cares nothing for its hopes and fears. Victory, in this struggle with the powers of darkness, is the true baptism into the glorious company of heroes, the true initiation into the overmastering beauty of human existence. From that awful encounter of the soul with the outer world, enunciation, wisdom, and charity are born; and with their birth a new life begins. To take into the inmost shrine of the soul the irresistible forces whose puppets we seem to be -- Death and change, the irrevocableness of the past, and the powerlessness of Man before the blind hurry of the universe from vanity to vanity -- to feel these things and know them is to conquer them”

Absolutely profound

[MuHammad Ahmed El-WaKeel · Rating 4 out of 5]

وكما قال أينشتاين: أنا أدين بساعات من السعادة لا تعدّ ولا تحصى لقراءتي أعمال راسل.. رغم كون الكتاب فلسفيّ بالدرجة الأولى، ودي تجربتي الأولى مع عمل فلسفي، فأنا كنت مبسوط وأنا بقرأ. الكتاب أسلوبه جميل، واختيارات الموضوعات والمقالات حلوة، وترجمة عدي عظيمة، بسبب اسم عدي على الكتاب أنا قريته، باعتبار عدي صديق على الفيسبوك، واكتشفت منه إن راسل جميل جدًّا، رجل حر، متسامح ومتنوِّر.

ربما تتفق معي ومعه، أو تختلف، على رؤيته للحياة وأهمية ما يؤثِّر فيها ويحركها، ربما ترى أن للدين تأثير مختلف، ربما ترى أي شيء غير وجهة نظره، بس صعب متحترموش، وصعب متشكرش عدي على الترجمة والاختيارات الممتعة دي.

كانت تجربة حلوة حلوة...

[Barbara K · Rating 4 out of 5]

Stimulating reading. On one level it is difficult to think that in 1940 Russell was deemed unfit to teach based on these brilliantly expressed ideas. And yet... Given the current socio-political climate in the US, I guess it shouldn’t be that hard to believe that people will overreact to concepts they find threatening. Something Russell himself understood completely.

[Maher Razouk · Rating 5 out of 5]

ألم الحقيقة و مرارتها ... هو ما ستشعر به عندما تقرأ هذا الكتاب الصريح و الصادق ... ربما عند البعض سيضاف لهم شعور بأنهم كانوا منذ الطفولة و حتى لحظة الصحوة : هدفا سهلا للخداع و السيطرة العقلية

[Dihia · Rating 4 out of 5]

The five chapters of this essay include the following topics:
I. NATURE AND MAN;
II. THE GOOD LIFE;
III. MORAL RULES;
IV. SALVATION: INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIAL;
V. SCIENCE AND HAPPINESS
In these five sections, Russell highlights many subjects such as the man-nature relationship, religion, morals, science, among others.
The clarity of ideas and the way in which this philosopher deals with the most delicate subjects impress me.
As in many of his books, religion is often criticized by Russell for being a limit for human development. In his essay "Why I am not a Christian?", the author evokes the fact that fear is the foundation of religion. ‘’Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear’’.
This idea is always present in this book.
The part when he was talking about the meaning of a good life was very impressive. This is where he quoted one of his most remarkable sentences.
‘’The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. Knowledge and love are both indefinitely extensible; therefore, however good a life may be, a better life can be imagined. Neither love without knowledge, nor knowledge without love can produce a good life. ‘’

[Yousef Nabil · Rating 4 out of 5]

كتاب مدهش بالرغم من إن عدد الأراء اللي اتفقت معاه فيها قليلة جدًا، ووجدت من وجهة نظري كمية كبيرة جدا من المغالطات، طيب ليه مدهش؟
الكتاب مدهش عشان راسل بيتلك مبصراحة ووضوح شديدين.. مفيش أي لف ودوران.. بيلخص أفكار أساسية في المفاهيم الليبرالية واللاأدرية أو الإلحادية بشكل واضح جدًا.
وضوح الفكرة ومباشرتها في الأعمال الفكرية بقى شيء مفقود خاصة في عصر التفكيك وما أشبه، لكن راسل حاد جدًا.. واضح جدًا، وده نوع بالنسبة لي كويس جدا لأنه يضع يدك على الأمر بوضوح ومن ثم يمكنك رفضه أو قبوله بحرية.

[Terence M [on a brief semi-hiatus] · Rating 5 out of 5]

BR1 What I Believe (Russell) - Part 1 of a 4 Part Series
Audiobook - 01:21 Hours - Narrated by Terence Hardiman

Wonderful listening!

[Khalid Obeid · Rating 5 out of 5]

This essay was published in 1925, in which Bertrand Russell examines what he believes in, one of the most enjoyable reads I have encountered it’s an essential read for everyone who likes to think outside the conventional way of thinking that societies and religions force us to follow, the essay simply address our logic in thinking about some fundamental elements in our lives, it advises the reader to follow common sense and break away from irrationality. in the preface Bertrand Russell writes that in human affairs we can see that there are forces making for happiness and forces working for misery, we do not know which will prevail but to act wisely we must be aware of both. The essay was evidence in the 1940 court proceeding to declare Bertrand unfit for lecturing at City College New York, strangely enough a decade later he was presented with noble prize of literature.

The essay is divided into five parts and here is my summary of each;

Nature and man ;

As the physical world becomes revealed with science it becomes less and less interesting in the sense that knowledge destroys the notion of the supernatural. Man physiology can be reduced to its physical basis, mental phenomena seems to be bound up with material structure, so we cannot suppose that the individual thinking can survive the death of the body since it distorts the organization of the brain and dissipates the energy which utilize the brain tracts. Thus the proposition of immortality is irrational and mostly improbable.

“Persons are part of the everyday world with which science is concerned, and the conditions which determine their existence are discoverable. A drop of water is not immortal; it can be resolved into oxygen and hydrogen. If, therefore, a drop of water were to maintain that it had a quality of aqueousness which would survive its dissolution we should be inclined to be skeptical. In like manner we know that the brain is not immortal, and that the organized energy of a living body becomes, as it were, demobilized at death, and therefore not available for collective action. All the evidence goes to show that what we regard as our mental life is bound up with brain structure and organized bodily energy. Therefore it is rational to suppose that mental life ceases when bodily life ceases. The argument is only one of probability, but it is as strong as those upon which most scientific conclusions are based. “

In the case of the soul, logic says that the soul can be indivisible that it certainly cannot occur as a whole within the human body, Bertrand believes that the soul is part of human physiology that through conception, gestation and infancy no one can believe that soul is perfect and complete, the soul grows parallel with the human body which makes it more probable the soul has a material element within our bodies.

So what make men so irrational as to believe in such things ( immortality and the survival of the soul after death ), Bertrand says its the fear of death, as fear is the basis of all religious dogmas. Immortality which is offered by religion relieves people of the fear of death.

The Good Life ;

Many people have different views of what constitutes a good life but Bertrand believes that a good life is one that inspired by love and guided by knowledge. and both are extensible, so no matter how good can life be it can always get better and neither one of them can produce a good life without the other. love is sometimes regarded more essential as it can lead to seeking knowledge in order to benefit the loved ones.

love as emotion cover a variety of feelings ranging between pure delight and pure benevolence (the desire of others wellbeing ) . when conflict arise between the two it should be solved by compromise not by complete surrender of either. in aiming for good life the limits of humans must be brought to mind. and here when knowledge come .

[caption id="attachment_373" align="alignright" width="239"] Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)[/caption]

 

Regarding knowledge Bertrand speaks about scientific knowledge as he disapproves of ethical knowledge. If we desire to achieve some end knowledge show us the means and this knowledge may loosely pass as ethical but Bertrand do not believe that we can decide which conduct is right or wrong except by reference to it consequences, all moral rules must be tested by examining whether or not it lead to ends that we desire .

And here he speaks of ends that we desire rather than (what we ought to desire), the difference being is that what we ought to desire is usually what others want us to, others being societies, authorities and religion. Since all behaviors springs from desire it’s clear that ethical notions have no importance except that they influence desire and they do this through the desire for approval and the fear of disapproval.

Moral Rules ;

The practical rules of morals arise from the conflict of desire whether of individual or different people at the same time. Current morality is a curious blend between utilitarianism and superstations, but the superstitious part has the stronger hold and that’s natural since it’s the origin of current moral rules. When acts are thoughts displeasing to gods it’s widely regarded as sinful and immoral. Bertrand asks us to examine the divine laws as we are men of science, that we should inquire whether the act does harm or whether the believe that the act is sinful is what causes the harm. In his view he believes if the act is innocent and does not cause harm to anyone then it’s acceptably moral even if it goes against superstitious scriptures.



Salvation - Individual and Social ;

Traditionally the religious life is a dialogue between the soul and god, so if an individual obeys the will of god presumably he achieves individual salvation regardless of the state of his community. But Bertrand thinks that in the modern world we should aspire to social rather than individual salvation as it leads to the good life. The good life as he said consist of love guided by knowledge, this knowledge is mainly attainable by multitude of factors that requires the unity of the community. So we require a different code of guidance other than religion that considers the welfare of the whole society.

Science and Happiness;

The purpose of the moralist is to improve men’s behavior, but Bertrand disapproves of the methods they use to achieve that purpose. They either use moral exhortation or a system of rewards and punishments. Bertrand thinks that there are other methods that can be effective. These methods rely on first identifying the roots of bad behavior which are either ignorance or bad desires. In the case of ignorance the solution is knowledge, but in case of bad desire it’s much complicated.

Bad desires is defined as desires that thwart the desires of others or thwart more desires than they assist. They spring from active malevolence. The causes of malevolence in the society is fear, Bertrand speaks about fear as an irrational passion not of the rational preservation of misfortune. This fear can be compacted by increasing social security and cultivating courage. And this is the duty of the scientific moralist. Other causes of malevolence include envy and disappointment. Envy is compacted by encouraging the idea of collective enterprise rather than competition. Where envy is unavoidable it must be used to as stimulus to one’s own efforts not to the thwarting of the efforts of rivals.

These are just some of the parts that I liked about the essay, it’s by no mean a complete summary. I think this essay is one of the most brilliant concise texts I have ever read, I found out that most of the things that Bertrand Russel believes in are also my believes. I would advise everyone to go and read it.

 

 

 

 

[Gowtham · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bertrand russell எழுதிய சிறு சிறு புத்தகங்களை தேடும் போது கிடைத்தது தான் “What i believe”. தன்னுடைய நம்பிக்கைகளை, புரிதல்களை, சமூக பார்வையை எளிமையாக அதே சமயத்தில் ஆழமாக எழுதியுள்ளார்.

முக்கியமான வரிகளை அடையாளமிட்டு(highlight) கடைசியாக பாதி புத்தகத்தை அடையாளமிட்டது போல் ஆகியது. 50 பக்கங்களில் இத்தனை விஷயங்களை தெளிவாக விளக்க ஒரு அறிவு தெளிவு வேண்டும். Russellஐ படிக்க விரும்புபவர்கள் இந்த நூலில் இருந்து தொடங்குங்கள்.

மனிதன் என்பவன் இயற்கையின் ஒரு அங்கம் தானே ஒழிய அவன் இயற்கைக்கு அப்பாற்பட்ட ஒரு பிறவி எல்லாம் இல்லை என்று தொடங்குகிறார், இந்த பகுதி முழுக்க இயற்கைக்கும்-மனிதனுக்கும் இடையேயான உறவு பற்றியே பேசுகிறார். இயற்கையின் தத்துவமும்(Philoshopy of nature), மனித மதீப்பீடுகளின் தத்துவமும்(philoshopy of values) வெவ்வேறானவை, இயற்கையை விட மனித மதிப்பீடுகள் மனித குல வளர்ச்சிக்கு பெரும்பங்காற்றுபவை.

அடுத்த பகுதியில் நல்ல வாழ்க்கைக்கான(Good life) அளவீடு எது? நல்ல வாழ்க்கை என்றால் என்ன? போன்ற கேள்விகளுக்கு அவரின் புரிதல்களை பகிர்கிறார். "நல்ல வாழ்க்கை என்பது அன்பால் உயிர்ப்பூட்டப்பட்டு அறிவால் உந்தப்படுவதாகும்". அதே போல ஒரு நல்ல வாழ்க்கையை வாழ்வதற்கு மூன்று முக்கியமான விஷயங்களை கடைப்பிடிக்க வேண்டும் 1.விவேகம்(intelligence), 2.சுய கட்டுப்பாடு(self-control), 3.இரக்கம்/பரிவு (sympathy).

தர்க்கம்(Moral) என்பது ஆசைகளின்(desire) விளைவாக உருவாகுபவை, ஒருவொரு மனிதனுக்கும் இது வேறுபடும். மதத்தின் மூலமாக வருகின்ற தர்க்கம் என்பது, பிற்போக்குத்தனங்களாலும் மூடநம்பிக்கைகளாலும் கட்டமைக்கப்பட்டதாகும், தர்க்க பிரச்சனைகளை அறிவியல் துணை கொண்டு அணுக வேண்டும், இத்தகைய தர்க்க ரீதியிலான(Morality) கற்பிதங்களை கல்வி அமைப்பின் மூலம் கற்பிக்கப்பட வேண்டும் என்கிறார்.

முக்தி(Salvation) அடையவேண்டும் என்பது ஒரு சாத்தியமற்ற ஆதிக்க(Aristocratic) மனநிலை என்றும், ஒரு சிறந்த வாழ்க்கையை வாழ்வதற்கு சிறந்த சமூகம் அவசியமானது, நீதி(justice) என்பது அத்தகைய சமூகத்தை கட்டி எழுபவதிலேயே அமைந்துள்ளது என்கிறார்.

மகிழ்ச்சியை பற்றி இறுதி பகுதியில் பேசுகிறார், ஒரு தர்க்கவியலாளரின்(moralist) தேவை என்பது மனித பண்புகளை(human behaviour) மாற்றியமைப்பதிலும் அதனை முன்னேற்றுவதிலும் தான் அமைந்துள்ளது. ஒரு சமூகமாக மகிழ்ச்சியான வாழ்கையையே வாழ்வதற்கு, பொது பாதுகாப்பையும்(general-security), துணிவு(courage) மனப்பான்மையையும் அனைவருக்குள்ளும் உருவாக்க வேண்டும். இதற்கு எதிரியான அச்சம், பயம் போன்ற விஷயங்களை பெரும் நம்பிக்கையினூடே தகர்க்க வேண்டும்.

மேலும் இவை அனைத்தையும் அடைவதற்கு அறிவியலையும், பகுத்தறிவையும் துணையாக கொண்டு நீதியின் வழியே ஒரு சமூகத்தை கட்டமைப்பதில் தான் மனித குலத்தின் விடுதலை அடங்கியுள்ளது என்று முடிக்கிறார் .

மிகவும் நம்பிக்கையூட்டும் புத்தகமாகவும் அதையே சமயம் அறிவூட்டும் வகையிலும் அமைந்தது, மேலும் Bertrand russellன் எழுத்துக்களை படிக்க ஆர்வம் அதிகம் ஆகியுள்ளது .

ஒரு அறிவார்ந்த சமூகமாக வளர, இதில் கூறப்படும் செய்திகள் நிச்சயம் உதவும். Russellன் நாத்திகம் என்பது முழுக்க முழுக்க சமூக நீதியின்பாலும், பகுத்தறிவாலும், அனைவருக்குமான முன்னேற்ற்றத்திலுமே அமைந்துள்ளது என்பதை புரிந்துகொள்ள முடிகிறது.

வாய்ப்புள்ள நண்பர்கள் அவசியம் வாசியுங்கள்.

Book: what I believe

Author: Bertrand Russell

#must_read
#Philoshopy

Thanks, Premkumar for introducing Russell to me. 😍😍

[Jude · Rating 5 out of 5]

This essay was only 40 pages long, but in that 40 pages Bertrand Russell managed to pack in lots of thought provoking ideas. Since it was a library book, I felt duty bound to make notes of some of his more noteworthy quotes. I can see why this book made the establishment so unhappy. He turns lots of ideas that we take on board so uncritically and makes you question them. It is not just religion that he has in his sights, but also morality, our treatment of criminals and education.
Whether you ultimately agree with his views or not, this essay is guaranteed to make you sit down and examine what you do believe, and that can only be a good thing to do from time to time. His opening gambit: "If there is a god, he, she, it, or they should be tried for crimes against humanity. The devout are guilty of praising wickedness, either because they are too cowardly to face the fact that god is a criminal,or because they have a perverted sense of morality and really believe that might makes right." is going to have the deeply religious outraged I am sure. He doesn't argue about proof or lack of for the existence of god, but he certainly argues against all the manifest pain that we have inflected on ourselves and our neighbours because of a belief in god.
On the subject of education:"In all stages of education the influence of superstition is disastrous. A certain percentage of children have the habit of thinking; one of the aims of education is to cure them of this habit." That remark is certainly contentious and was no doubt the reason his fitness to teach was called into question back in the 1920's.As for his beliefs concerning the treatment and rehabilitation of criminals, his arguments are such that they could cause the fiercest debates to this day.
I would recommend this essay to anybody who is interested in the way our societies are formed and it was interesting to see how much of our thinking has changed/stayed the same since he wrote this book.His views were way before his time, and even today would be the source of in depth debate.

[Nikola Jankovic · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tri eseja iz 1925, u kojima Rasel objašnjava svoj pogled na život, ali pre svega na religiju. Objašnjava zašto je ateista.

"Dobar život je inspirisan ljubavlju i vođen znanjem," je sjajan životni moto i nešto čega bi se vredelo podsećati, ali Rasel ide dalje. Konkretno poredi život vođen razumom i život vođen verom. Hrišćansko spasenje vidi kao nešto što treba da nas odvede u individualno dobar život (ili vreme nakon života), dok dobar život u društvu vidi kao nešto inspirisano znanjem (ili Platonom, kaže u jednom trenutku). Ko želi dobar život na način kako ga promoviše hrišćanstvo, pa makar to bilo i nakon smrti, taj je parazit.

Osim toga, ne prihvata viđenje agnostika. Ne prihvata navodnu dobrotu Hrista i hrišćanstva, koji ne bi trebalo da škode ikome. Moral Isusa je vera u pakao i pretnje paklom onima koji ga ne slušaju; doktrina zla i surovosti. Taj moral poredi sa razumnim životom koji temelji na obrazovanju ili sa Sokratom i njegovom odbranom na sudu, pred smrt. Ali opet, crkva bi trebalo da nas čini vrlima? Rasel se ne slaže - crkva se protivila svakom moralnom napretku u istoriji, a to čini i danas, kroz učenja o braku, abortusu, nauci i drugim moralnim pravilima koja se često protive ljudskom zadovoljstvu.

Religija je protivna prirodi slobodnog čoveka - znanju, hrabrosti i slobodnom izboru, nadi u budućnost, mogućnosti da iskoristiš svaki dan. Dobar život po Raselu? Obrazovanje, prijateljstvo, ljubav, deca ako ih želiš, solidan prihod, zdravlje i posao koji nije nezanimljiv.

Čitao sam eseje predstavnika novog ateizma, npr. Kristofera Hačinsa i Sema Harisa. Slažem se i s njima, ali na trenutke mi zvuče suviše agresivno u svom iskazivanju nevere. Iako i Rasel kritikuje hrišćanstvo, nekako je smireniji, razumniji - pa zbog toga i bolji za čitanje.

[Sandys Nunes · Rating 3 out of 5]

Para uma vida virtuosa misture amor e conhecimento.

[Tuqa Mohammed · Rating 5 out of 5]

راسل بأسلوبه العقلاني الرصين و العبقري جدا ، يسيطر على عقل القارئ حول الاسئلة التي من الممكن أن يثيرها طرحه ، عادةً تجد أجوبتها في الاسطر القادمة .

[Sasha S. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Рассел бездоганний у власній аргументації і логіці. Проходиться по усім темам, від моралі і релігії до сексуального виховання і сенсу життя.

Але, в 2023 році, пасажі про Лігу Націй, як запобіжник воєн і майбутню демократію, що має наступити - не можуть не викликати гіркої посмішки. Гарний ідеалізм, який на жаль не стався. Все ж 5.

[Siham Siar · Rating 3 out of 5]

"هنالك احتمال أن تكون البشرية على عتبة عصر ذهبي، ولكن إذا كان هذا صحيحا فمن الضروري أولا قتل التنين الذي يحرص البوابة وهذا التنين هو الدين"!!.☄

الكتاب عبارة عن مقالات مترجمة لراسل: الحرية، الدين، التفكير. والتي بدورها تحظى بالأكثر شعبيةو رواجا وتأثيرا على العامة من الباحثين.

" لولم نكن خائفين من الموت لما وجدت فكرة الخلود".⚱

يؤكد راسل على ارتباط الجسد مع الروح على عكس أفلاطون الذي يرى بأن الروح تتخذ شاكلة مغايرة للجسد عند ممات الإنسان، ويفند الجنة والأخرة ويمقت العذاب الأبدي ويفنده بتعصب. حينما سئل كيف ستؤمن أو متى ستؤمن بهما أو بالآخرة بصفة عامة، قال بتصرف: حينما أسمع صوتا من السماء يخبرني عن مستقبلي في الغد، عن أمور مستحيلة أن تحصل وأن تحصل بعد أن يخبرني في وقتها، فحينها يمكن أن أؤمن.!! 🐸

ويحدثنا راسل عن خرافات المسيحية ⛪ بأنها اعتبرت أصل القواعد الأخلاقية في تحليل ما كان موجوبا وتحريم ما كان محروما، ويشدد ذلك بطرحه لقضية الجنس وتحريمه خارج إطار الزواج، وعقوبة الاجهاض، وحتى دور المرأة في شريعته، والتدقيق في قصة المسيح ونقده لمعجزاته التي لا أصل لها، ولتقديسه المبالغ فيه، فهو لا يرى فيه إلا شخصا عادي، بل حتى أن أفلاطون يستحق أن يكون مكانه.
ويعلن راسل بكل شفافية عن مقته للمسيحة بل لكل الأديان التي ارتسم طابعها بالرعب، وترهيب الناس.

يقول بأنه ليس مسيحيا بل لا أدري!!

أكثر شيء شدني لفلسفته، هو تشدده على ضرورة معاملة الجاني كالمصاب بالطاعون؛ أن نتعاطف معه و نحدد المشكلة والعلاج، بدلا من نبذه أو إعدامه. 🏳🕊

[Candleflame23 · Rating 3 out of 5]

.
.



‏
مالذي يؤمن به برتراند راسل ، الفيلسوف والمؤرخ
البريطاني أحد مؤسسي الفلسفة التحليلية التي طغت علىً
العالم منذ بداية القرن العشرين ، حاز راسل على جائزة
نوبل في الأدب لعام 1950 بسبب ما تميز به نشره الفلسفي
من روح عقلانية ومتحرره .


أما من ناحية الدين ، فموقفه كما قال المترجم مركب
إذ لا يمكن تحديد ما كانت وجهته فهو ليس ملحد لأنه يرى
الإلحاد بالمنظار ذاته الذي يرى به الدين وهو أن كلاهما
لا دليل عليه !!! وهو أيضاً ليس من متبعي " اللاادرية "
التي كان يرفضها وبشدة .


القسم الأول من الكتاب يتحدث عن رؤية راسل الفلسفية
تجاه الأخلاق والإنسان وهي مختصر ما جاء في كتابٍ
سابقٍ له " مالذي أؤمن به ".
هنا كان واضح الجانب الإلحادي من شخصيته التي
ترفض القبول بأي شيء ليس للعلم يد فيه ، كالنزعة
الأخلاقية والمشاعر والسعادة رافضا الإعتراف بوجود
التفسير الذي يتبعه المؤمنين من المسيحيين و اليهود
أو حتى المسلمين الذي يؤدي بطبيعته للإيمان بوجود
الله .ويجادل راسل الكنيسة المؤمنة بوجود الله هنا بأربعة
براهين " المسبب الأول ، القانون الطبيعي ، البرهان
المستمد من النظام ، البرهان الأخلاقي للألوهية ".



أما القسم الثاني من الكتاب كان أكثر تنوعاً نظراً لاحتوائه
على مقالات مختلفة ناقش من خلالها راسل وجهة نظره
في الدين عن طريق الإجابة عن بعض الأسئلة مثل " لماذا
لست مسيحياً ؟ " وهل أنجو من الموت ". وفي سؤاله حول
نوع الدليل الذي يمكن أن يتقبله على وجود الله ؟ أجاب :
أعتقد أنني لو سمعت صوتاً قادماً من السماء يتنبأ بكل
ما سيحدث لي في الساعات الأربع وعشرين القادمة
بما قد يحدث ذات الاحتمالية المنخفضة جداً وان حدثت
كل هذه الأمور ربما قد أقتنع بوجود ذكاء أرفع من ذكاء البشر
أستطيع أن أتخيل أدلة مشابهة قد تحملني على الاقتناع
ولكن على حد علمي ، لا يوجد هكذا أدلة ". .!!!

القسم الثالث تحدث عن مفهوم الحرية والقسم الأخير طرح
مقالين ولكن بشكل ساخر .
وبالنسبة لي شعرت بأن مشكلة راسل أنه كان مستعد لقبول
أي رأي مالم يكن هذا الرأي منصفاً لله والأديان ، فتجده
تارة يمجد العلم وآخرى ينال منه وتارةيمتدح
الفلسفة وآخرى يواجهها بالنقص !.

فالختام الكتاب في جملته لا خلاف في النظر إليه
والإطلاع على الطريقة التي فكر بها سيد الفلسفة التحليلة
ولكن أرى بأنه غير مناسب للقراء اليافعين .
.
.
#تمت
#أبجدية_فرح
#مراجعتي لـ #كتاب. # مالذي_أؤمن_به
#برتراند_راسل ~