Fact and Fiction

by Bertrand Russell

First published in 1961, Fact and Fiction is a collection of Bertrand Russell’s essays that reflect on the books and writings that influenced his life, including fiction, essays on politics and education, divertissements and parables. Also broaching on the highly controversial issues of war and peace, it is in this classic collection that Russell states some of his most famous pronouncements on nuclear warfare and international relations. It is a remarkable book that provides valuable insight into the range of interests and depth of convictions of one of the world’s greatest philosophers.

Genres: Philosophy, Essays, Nonfiction, Politics, Literary Criticism

304 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1961

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

[Mohammad Hrabal · Rating 4 out of 5]

پذیرفتن اینکه افکار و عقاید فلان کس همواره باطل است، همان اندازه زیان بخش است که گمان کنیم افکار و عقاید او همواره درست است. ص 26 کتاب
«نابود کردن یک کتاب خوب با کشتن یک انسان تقریبا برابر است: آن که انسانی را می‌کشد، آفریده‌ای خردمند را می‌کشد، تصویری از خدا را می‌کشد؛ اما آنکس که کتاب خوبی را نابود می‌کند، خود خرد را می‌کشد» ص 38 کتاب
این تقریبا منطق تغییرناپذیر همه‌ی انقلاب‌هاست: هنگامی که انقلاب در حال تکوین است، انقلابیان آزادی را می‌ستایند؛ اما فردای پیروزی، استبداد را برقرار می‌دارند. ص 38 کتاب
آنچه بشر را متنعم می‌سازد، پندار نیست-هر اندازه هم این پندار بلندپایه جلوه کند- بلکه دنبال کردن حقیقت است با شهامتی استوار. ص 56 کتاب
زیان حاصل از آزار و شکنجه‌ی افرادی که عقایدی خلاف طبع عامه‌ی مردم دارند، آن است که مردم در آغاز کار هر پیشرفتی را چه اخلاقی و چه عقلانی چون ضربتی ناگهانی تلقی می‌کنند. به همین دلیل جامعه‌ای که نمی‌تواند افکار و عقاید غیر معمول را تاب بیاورد ناگزیر عقب افتاده و عقیم می‌ماند. ص 65 کتاب
هر دولتی که آزادی فکری را خوار و بی‌مقدار شمارد، چنانچه بخواهد می‌تواند نتایج مذکور را به دست آورد. در این صورت دیگر استثمار اکثریت مردم به دست اقلیت حاکم حد و حصری پیدا نمی‌کند، دیگر نیازی به به مجازات اندیشه‌های نو نیست، زیرا اندیشه‌ی نو متجلی نخواهد شد. ملتی که بدینسان برده گشته است، شاید مدتی از خود توان عظیمی نشان دهد، اما دیری نمی‌پاید که ملت‌های دیگر، که از ابتکار فردی و ظرفیت پیشرفت علمی برخوردارند، بر آن پیشی خواهند گرفت- البته باید گفت اگر چنین مللی باقی بمانند. صفحات 70-71 کتاب
ملت‌هایی که تاریخ پر شکوهی دارند، به جز آنها که فقط در نظامی‌گری شکوه و جلالی داشتند، در واقع همیشه آزادی بسیار به افراد می‌داده‌اند که این آزادی یا بر حسب تصادف یا با طرح و تدبیر اعطا شده بود. ص 74 کتاب
گذشته از پرورش مردان بزرگ در آزادی فردی مزیت دامنه‌دار‌تری نهفته است. به برکت آزادی فردی، شخص می‌تواند عزت نفس خود را حفظ کند، سرافراز باشد، و آنچه را که وجدانش امر می‌کند انجام دهد. چه انگشت شمارند آنها که در جهان مدرن از چنین نعمتی برخوردارند. ص 75 کتاب
دموکراسی ولو با هیئت مقننه و مجریه برگزیده‌ی مردم ضامن آزادی نیست. در ایرلند دموکراسی هست، اما چه بسیار کتاب‌هایی که مردم هوشمند مشتاق خواندن آنها هستند و دولت مطالعه‌ی آنها را ممنوع کرده است... به یاد داشته باشیم که دموکراسی با آزادی ملازمه‌ای ندارد و در نظر داشته باشیم که از این دو، هر چه باشد آزادی مهم‌تر است. صفحات 80-81 کتاب
بسیاری از دموکراسی‌ها در حل یک مشکل پیوسته با شکست روبه‌رو بوده‌اند و آن نظارت بر نیروی پلیس است. وقتی سازمان پلیس فاسد و بی‌مرام باشد و دادرسان هم به کشف جرایم آنان رغبتی نشان ندهند، چه بسا سرنوشت شهروندان وابسته به رحم و شفقت سازمان نیرومندی شود که چون مجری قانون شناخته شده است، امکانات بسیاری برای ارتکاب اعمال خلاف و غیر قانونی دارد. به گمان من این خطری است که بسیاری از ملت‌ها به خوبی بدان پی نبرده‌اند. ص 98 کتاب
من فکر می‌کنم تصور اینکه سیستمی بهتر از دموکراسی وجود داشته باشد، تا کنون دست کم تا آنجا که مربوط به جوامع متمدن غربی است، تصوری بسیار خطرناک است. نه بدان جهت که دموکراسی متضمن امور مثبت خوب است، بلکه بیشتر از آن رو که مانع شرارت‌های بزرگی می‌گردد که در سیستم‌های دیگر وجود دارد. ص 100 کتاب
هر جا دموکراسی بر تخت نشیند، نمی‌توان دولت را «عطیه‌ی الهی» قلمداد کرد و مردم را به پرستش آن وا داشت. هگل در برابر مزدی که از خزانه‌ی پروس می‌گرفت، چاپلوسانه چنین عقیده‌ای را به مردم تلقین می‌کرد. ص 121 کتاب
در جهانی که ما زندگی می‌کنیم، هر]هم[ خطری بزرگ و هم فرصتی بزرگ وجو دارد- که هر دو از تمام خطرها و فرصت‌های گذشته عظیم‌ترند، و هر دو را نیروی ما برای برآوردن آمال ما پدید آورده است. اگر بخواهیم می‌توانیم نوع بشر را فنا کنیم. از سوی دیگر، اگر بخواهیم می‌توانیم خانواده‌ی بشری را به صورتی متمدن نیکبخت و سعادتمند بیافرینیم، خانواده‌ای که تمام ملت‌ها، همه‌ی اعتقادات و کلیه‌ی نژادها را در بر گیرد. اینکه ما کدام راه را بر می‌گزینیم، بستگی به هوی و هوس همگی ما دارد، و هوی و هوس همگی ما عبارت است از حاصل جمع هوی و هوس‌های فرد فرد ما. هر یک از ما که اجازه دهد نفرت و کین، حسد و غرور برتری‌طلبی بر وجودش مستولی شود یا با سلاح کشتار جمعی به شکار ایمنی رود، به سهم خود وقوع مصیبت عالمگیر را یاری کرده است. هر یک از ما که امید و مدارا و وقوف بر این حقیقت که جنگ و ستیز کاری زشت و احمقانه است، الهام بخش اعمالش باشد، آنچه در توان دارد برای خلق بهشتی زمینی انجام می‌دهد، بهشتی که تحقق آن هرگز در گذشته امکان‌پذیر نبوده، اما اکنون تکنیک علمی آن را ممکن ساخته است. انتخاب ] میان مرگ و زندگانی[ بستگی به هوی و هوس ما دارد. مرگ یا زندگی؟ قرن ما یکی را بر خواهد گزید. صفحات 177-178 کتاب
نتیجه‌ی مفید از مطالعه‌ی ادبیات بزرگ جهان وقتی حاصل می‌شود که با آنها چنان مانوس شوید که بخشی از افکار روزمره‌ی شما گردند. ص 184 کتاب
بالاتر از همه هر معلمی که مشتاق است شاگردان خود را به بهترین صورت بار آورد، باید خویشتن را نه مدافع فلان قشر یا بهمان دسته‌ی سیاسی، بلکه خدمتگزار حقیقت بداند. حقیقت الهه‌ای است تابان، همواره مستور، پیوسته از دسترس دور که هرگز به تمامی تسخیر نمی‌شود، اما ارزش دارد که هر چه از روح انسانی بر می‌آید وقف او گردد. ص 195 کتاب
وقتی آدمی به نابینایی کشورداران و بی‌فکری عامه‌ی مردم در مورد مسائل پیش روی بشر امروز می‌اندیشد، به سختی می‌تواند خود را از چنگ ناامیدی رها سازد. ص 305 کتاب

[Peiman E iran · Rating 5 out of 5]

‎دوستانِ گرانقدر، این کتاب از چهار فصل کلی و 34 بخش تشکیل شده است...موضوعِ اصلی که «برتراند راسل» فیلسوفِ گرانقدر و خردمند، در این کتاب به آن پرداخته است، «دموکراسی» و جنبه هایِ گوناگونِ آن میباشد
‎به انتخاب قسمت هایی از نوشته هایِ این مردِ اندیشمند را در زیر برایتان مینویسم... سپس در پایان نیز چند خطی از «دموکراسی» برایِ ایرانیان خردگرا، خواهم نوشت
‎پیش از پرداختن به «دموکراسی» به این سخنِ بسیار خردمندانۀ «راسل» در مورد ماهیتِ اسلام و تازیانِ غارتگر و بیابانی، که در این کتاب آمده توجه کنید... برتراند راسل، مینویسد: اگرچه تازیان بخش مهمی از دنیایِ کهن را به نامِ مذهب تسخیر کردند، هدفِ واقعیِ آنها از این فتوحات، کسبِ غنیمت بود تا توسعۀ اسلام... به همین جهت تا وقتیکه غارت جزو دین درنیامده بود، اسلام نیز پیشرفتی نداشت... دلیلِ اینهم که شمارِ معدودی جنگجویِ تازی توانستند بر جوامعِ بسیار متمدن، استیلا یابند این بود که آنان نیز مانندِ "بربرهای ژرمنی" و "هون ها" و "مغول ها"، ایدئولوژی خود را بر اصل «غارتگری» بنیاد نهاده بودند
---------------------------------------------
‎از ديرگاه بسياری از دموكراسيها در حل ِ يک مشكل پيوسته با شكست روبرو بوده اند و آن نظارت بـر نيرویِ "پليس" است. وقتی سازمانِ پليس، فاسد و بيعقيده باشد و دادرسان هم به كشفِ جـرائمِ آنـان رغبتی نشان ندهند، ديگر سرنوشتِ مردمِ بيگناه وابسته به رحم و شفقتِ سازمان نيرومندی است كه چون مجـریِ قانون شناخته شده است، امكانات و تسهيلاتِ بسيار برایِ ارتكابِ اعمالِ خلاف و غيرِ قانونی دارد. بـه گمـانِ من اين خطری است كه بسياری از ملتها به خوبی بدان پی برده اند
*******************************
‎آزادی فقط در آنجا وجود دارد كه مردم از حيثِ عقيده به دو دسته كاملاً متمـايز تقسـيم شـده و در ميانِ هر دسته، مردمانِ با نفوذ وجود داشته باشند. چنين وضعی در غرب با تصادم دولـت و كليسـا در عصرِ "آمبروز قدیس" آغاز شد. در زمانِ ما اختلافِ نظرِ محافظـه كـاران و سوسياليسـتهـا در انگلسـتان و برخوردِ دموكراتها و جمهوری خواهان در آمريكا ضامنِ بقایِ آزادی میباشد. هر جا دموكراسی بر تخت نشيند، نميتوان دولت را «عطیهٔ الهی» قلمداد و مـردم را بـه پرستشِ آن واداشت
*******************************
‎كاسـتن از خصـلتِ جنـگ طلبـی و پرورانـدنِ روح صـلح جـویی در حكومـتهـایِ دموكراسی، كـارِ آموزشگاههاست. تاريخ را بايد به صورتِ تاريخِ پيدايش و تكاملِ تمدن به نوآموزان آموخت، نه به عنوانِ تاريخِ فلان و بهمان ملت... جوانان و نوجوانان، بايد بدانند كه همه كشورها مرتكبِ جناياتی شده اند و بيشترِ اين جنايات، خطایی ابلهانه بوده است. بايد بياموزند كه چگونه خشم و تعصبِ عمومی، وقتی شـدت گرفـت و بـه صـورت بيماری مهلکی در آمد، ممكن است كار ملتی را به جنون كشاند و او را بـه شـكنجه و آزار اقليـت برانگيـزد
*******************************
‎آن نوع آزادی فردی كه نگهداشتِ آن در یک حكومتِ دموكراسی از همه دشوارتر است آن اسـت كـه اهميت و اعتبارش از خدماتی كه نسبت به جامعه انجام ميدهد سرچشمه ميگيرد و اين اعتبار و اهميت، بر مردمِ نادان روشن نيست. كارهایِ فكریِ نو تقريباً هميشه برایِ مردم ناخوشايند بوده است، زيرا انديشه هایِ نو طغيانی است بر ضد تعصباتِ نابخردانهٔ دینی و مذهبی كه از ديرباز خميـرهٔ آدميـان شـده و تجـاوز بـدانهـا را از گناهـانِ كبيـره ميشمارند
*******************************
‎فضایِ ترس و وحشتی كه ما آموخته ايم در آن تنفس كنيم پاک خواهد شد. اگر بتوان افكارِ عمومی را عاقلتر ساخت.. اين جوِ آلوده تميزتر خواهد شد و افكارِ عمومی عاقلتر خواهد شد اگر حقايق را بتوان به اطلاعِ عامه رساند... و به هر كس كه به طرزِ فكر ما گرايد ميتوان وظیفه هایِ كوچک يـا بـزرگ، محـول كـرد كـه در خدمتِ آفرينشِ جهانی بهتر باشد
*******************************
‎در همـهٔ زمـانهـا، کسانی هستند كـه توانسته اند از اكثريتِ عامه عميقتر بينديشند و ژرفتر احساس كنند، بنابراین خويشتن را با یک يا شمارِ بيشتری از اعتقادات رايج در جامعهٔ خود در ستيز يافته اند. و بسياری از آنان كه ناگزير در اين سـتيز وارد شـده انـد، در نسلهایِ بعد، در زمرهٔ كسانی درآمده اند كه در شمارِ خرد و احساسِ انسانی، مردمی برتر شناخته شده اند
---------------------------------------------
‎بخشِ دوم ریویو

‎دوستان عزیزم و ایرانیان خردگرا، یکی از بزرگترین اشکالات جامعۀ ما، عدم فهمِ حضورِ "ضرورت" و "ارزش" است.. این مردمِ بیچاره هیچ وقت با تعالیمی که به آنها میدهند، نخواهند دانست، که آیا ضرورت ها بر ارزش ها مقدم هستند، یا این که این ارزش هایند که برضرورت هایِ جامعه مقدمند!... عزیزانم، ملتِ سنت گرا و الله زدۀ ایران نه معنیِ "ضرورت" را میدانند، و نه معنایِ "ارزش" را فهم میکنند. بنابراین، این ملتِ در طویلۀ دین تپیده را، هیچ زمان فهمی به «دموکراسی» نخواهد بود. دین هیچ تعریفی برای «دموکراسی» در کتابهایِ سنگین و به اصطلاح آسمانی و آدم خورِ خویش، ذخیره نکرده است.. هرچه هست، دستوراتِ تغییر ناپذیری است که همه را، یا الله خیالی گفته است و یا رسول و پیامبرانی که خود را به دروغ فرستادۀ آن الله میدانند... عزیزانم، شما پوشالِ «دموکراسی» را هم نمیتوانید، در حلقِ چنین جماعتِ عرب پرست و متعصب فرو کنید. چه برسد به اینکه، فقط بخواهید مترسکِ «دموکراسی» را، در مزرعۀ جانِ این تودۀ بیخرد نصب نمایید
‎مگر میشود در مغزِ این آخوندها و ملایانِ فسیلِ اسلام و شیعه، که ریشه در تعالیمِ "استالینی" دارد و با تزئینِ احکامی که از مکانی نامرئی نازل شده است و خدا، قرآن و سنت نیز چاشنیِ آن است، واژۀ «دموکراسی» را معنا کرد؟!؟ امکان ندارد
‎عزیزانم، کافیست در سخنانِ زنده یاد «برتراند راسل» در این کتاب کمی بیاندیشید، خواهید دانست که «دموکراسی» آن تعریفی نیست که مشتی سیاستمدارِ دلّاله، برای منافعِ شخصی و یا حزبیِ خویش، در اذهانِ عموم فرو میکنند.. «دموکراسی» یعنی اینکه، شما با تحملِ همراه با احترامِ تمام، به باورهایِ مخالفانِ نظر خودتان، پایبند باشید... البته منظور، احترام به اعتقاداتِ اشتباه و احمقانۀ دینی و مذهبی که سرشار از توهمات و خزعبلات میباشد و مانعِ پیشرفت جامعه و انسانیت میشود، نیست... نظری قابلِ پذیرش و احترام است، که در عقلانیتِ جمعی، تردیدی در آن نباشد
‎عزیزانم، استبدادی که ادیان و مذاهب، برای فهمِ «دموکراسی» در ذهنِ انسانهایِ بیچاره ابداع کرده اند، "آزادی" را به هیولایِ منحوسی تبدیل کرده است، تا مگر همگان را به وحشت از این هیولایِ وحشی، عادت دهد
‎ملّتی که در فهمِ دروس مُقلّدانه، تعالیمِ هزار و چندصد ساله دیده است، چطور میتواند «دموکراسی» را تعریف کند و اَنوارِ شفافِ شعور را، در خردِ خویش به فهم کشاند!؟ این مردم هیچگاه نمیفهمند که شعوری که با ریختنِ خون انسانها، به «دموکراسی» می اندیشد، پشیزی ارزش نداشته و نخواهد داشت
---------------------------------------------
‎امیدوارم این ریویو برای ِفرزندان باهوش و خردمندِ ایران زمین مفید بوده باشه
‎«پیروز باشید و ایرانی»

[Jamie Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Every age thinks its problems are unique, that it is threatened by dangers never seen before. A good history book shows there is nothing new under the sun, and that while the specific details of events change, the underlying motives repeat, so there is a way to understand and deal with them. Richard Hofstadter’s Pulitzer Prize winning 1964 book Anti-Intellectualism in American Life showed that the forces of ignorance and prideful know-nothingism go back to the very beginnings of American society and have always threatened education, justice, and progress.

Bertrand Russell’s Fact and Fiction is a mixed bag of essays, including some what-was-he-thinking? attempts at fiction. It is divided into four sections; Part One is about books that influenced him in his youth, and is valuable mostly for the asides he presents as he discusses literature and society, such as, “The harm done by persecution of individuals whose views are unpopular is that every progress, whether moral or intellectual, is at first considered shocking. For this reason, a society which cannot put up with unusual opinions necessarily becomes stereotyped and unprogressive.”

The second section, Politics and Education, is by far the best in the book, and shows that post-war Western society was affected not just by stifling conformity, but by the same kind of threats to democracy that we face today. This is the section that I will focus this review on.

Part Three is called Divertissements, and is an assortment of incidental essays and fiction, and Part Four consists of essays and addresses in support of nuclear non-proliferation, which was Russell’s main focus in his later years.

Part Two speaks to us today with an almost eerie prescience, as the forces of organized ignorance advance and democracies everywhere come under assault by populists and demagogues. Russell foresaw the dangers of political gridlock, presenting it in a way that sums up the United States Congress today, “If every compromise is viewed as a surrender of principle, it is impossible for rival groups to make a bargain representing a middle point between their respective interests.” Similarly, “Tolerance is, in many ways, absolutely essential to the success of democracy. If people hold their principles so strongly that they feel they ought to die or kill for them, every difference of opinion will lead to war or to a coup d’état.”

He reaches back to the early years of the United States government to illuminate an issue which today motivates certain news organizations and political parties:

Andrew Jackson represented a rebellion against [the cultivated men who had previously been presidents of the United States] on the part of pioneers and immigrants. He did not like culture and was suspicious of educated men since they understood things that puzzled him. This element of hostility to culture has persisted in American democracy ever since, and has made it difficult for America to trust its experts.

In the United States the phrase “drain the swamp” is frequently used as shorthand for cleaning up and perhaps sweeping away the current system of government and replacing it with something new, but a new order is a wolf in sheep’s clothing:

I think it extremely dangerous, so far, at least, as Western civilized communities are concerned, to imagine that there are better systems than democracy. It is not so much that democracy is positively good as that it makes impossible certain great evils which are apt to exist under other systems. When people imagine some undemocratic system introduced as a reform, they always implicitly or explicitly think of themselves as the holders of power in the new regime, and oneself, of course, is all-wise and perfectly virtuous. This, however, is not how things work out in practice.

Without the protection of democratic institutions and the rule of law no one’s life, liberty, or happiness is safe, “Although...there can be democracy without liberty, there can never be liberty without democracy. Such liberty as has existed under autocracies has depended upon the whim of the momentary despot, and has been liable to disappear overnight. It is only where there is a recognized orderly process of changing government or altering the laws, that liberty can be secure.”

The wish to remake society to conform with one’s own prejudices and religious beliefs often leads to a foolish rejection of science and a wish to return to an idealized past that never was. The twentieth century offered plenty of examples of how badly things can go wrong once the checks and balances of good government are removed:

those who attempt in the modern world to reintroduce despotic forms of government, whether in Germany or Russia, are hostile to the scientific point of view. The Nazis maintained that one should think with the blood rather than with the brain, and this habit had odd results. They held, for example, that Einstein’s general theory of relativity was not put forward by him because he believed it to be true, but only because he thought it would confuse the Gentiles. Jews, of course, were not taken in, but were accomplices in the game.

Churchill famously said that democracy is the worst form of government ever devised by the wit of man – except for all the other forms. Democracy has many frustrations and some infuriating flaws, but it is the best that fallible humans have come up with. Destroying it in the hope of creating something new and better is a fool’s errand, and almost certain to end badly. “This is the almost invariable logic of revolutions; while in the making they praise liberty; but when successful they establish tyranny.”

Our best hope is to muddle along, accepting the failings of democracy, and doing our best to protect it from those would see it destroyed. Russell understood the limitations of men in power, in our day as in all days past and future:

History shows what the study of human nature would lead us to expect: that any set of men, entrusted with power over others, will abuse their power unless they have reason to fear that they may lose it. Perhaps the greatest advantage of democracy over all other systems of government, is not that the men who have come to the top are exceptionally wise, but that, since their power depends upon popular support, they know that they cannot retain their position if they are guilty of more than a certain modicum of injustice.

There is some comfort in knowing that today’s problems are not unique, that decades ago Russell analyzed and understood the dangers confronting democratic societies. Democracy is not freely given, nor sustained without effort. There is a disputed quote by Edmund Burke that says, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing,” and whether he said it or not it is worth keeping in mind in these turbulent times.

[Smiley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Reading this four-part book by Russell is worth spending our time if we find his views inspiring. As for me, I found Part I Books that Inflence Me in Youth most interesting since, from its six chapters, he's revealed what kinds of books he read and his favourite authors, for example, Shelly, Milton, Turgenev, Ibsen, Carlyle, Shakespeare, Swift, and Gibbon.

Therefore, let me quote three excerpts for you:

1. SHELLY: ... I loved Shelly for his rhythm as much for his sentiment. It was not only Shelly's despairs that I liked among his sentiments but also his apocalyptic hopes. The vision of a world suddenly transformed when 'the banded anarchs fled' entranced me, and I was enraptured by the chorus at the end of Hellas, ... (p. 7)

2. SWIFT: ...Among the tomes that I took down from the shelves was an unexpurgated Swift. I read first The Tale of a Tub, which delighted me because it treated theological controversies with a flippancy of which nowadays not even the most arrant free-thinker would dare to be guilty. ... (p. 23)

3. GIBBON: ... Gibbon has many merits in my eyes, both great and small. To begin with the minor merits, his narrative was interesting, his jokes were amusing, and his characters were often very queer. ...
To come to more important matters, I was immensely interested by his account of oecumenical councils and theological disputes from the time of Constantine to the time of Justinian. ... (p. 30)

Moreover, I also found this statement by Swift for a budding philospher illuminating: 'Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making.' (p. 26) Why? Is there any light when we encounter this simple message from such a great author? I think the word 'opinion' is the key for anyone curious of learning to achieve his/her scholarship since it's one of the vital means to knowledge. In other words, we simply can't acquire knowledge unless we keep arguing, writing and expressing opinions. This statement also signifies the essential transformative process in creating knowledge by means of sharing reasons, exposition and ideas related to the point in question. Thus learning without opinions is futile, unimaginative and a waste of time.

ENDNOTE: I have my own respect and admiration to him because, as a true scholar/intellectual/philosopher, he did his best to serve the scholarly community all his life. One good point is that I've never read his vain self-praise anywhere. It's strange I've never come across this book so when I read its title in the Routledge website ($29.95) I thought I'd find one to read. So I was happy to buy this book on January 28, 2010 and would read any topics interesting to me one by one.

[M Jahangir kz · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great read, enrich with knowledge, critics, ideas.

The book is divided in 4 part, some part of the books discusses the fiction side of the book, and other discusses factual or non fiction side.

In first part Russell outlines and discuses the authors and the books that have influenced him in the youth, according to him the age of 15 to 22 is the one in which one explored and tries to reach to a point of ideology which he uses then rest of the life to see the world with that outlook, he further adds that after that age one hardly gets influenced and it will be a dramatic or take a lot if one changes his/her ideas after that age.

Russell said that he has been influenced greatly by Russian author Turgenev, although he mentioned both Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, but concede that because he read these two authors lately so it didn't leave much mark on him, apart from Turgenev, he is influenced by the writing of Ibsen, John Milton, Shelley, and Goethe. He talks in this book about how these authors influenced him, and which of the books of these author in particular shaped the minds of Russell.

Second part of the book was the most important for me, as it was very knowledgeable and full of wisdom, in this part Russell discusses various topics with regards to the education and politics. Here he talks about the education, politics, democracy, freedom,

The third part is titled as Divertissement, it is a fictional part of the book, here Russell with his imagination pens down some of the fictional story which portrays a powerful message. He also described some of the stories of his dreams here.

The last part of the book is on War and peace, although the larger part of the book is being focused on the east and west rivalry of that mid 20th century between Soviet Union and west, but the things are still very much relevant today what he said in 1960s, worth reading topics in this part are, population pressure and war, race of the armament, destruction or prosperity. Russell tells us in this part how the wish of domination brought us to a point of total annihilation, he further discusses communism, capitalism and points out the responsibilities of a neutral in that war of economic production, he further discusses things such as population, he said that population has a direct link with the prosperity and collective well being of that particular nation, like India , china or other Easter nation with huge population and if it is keep increasing rapidly then the east can never able to sustain and enjoy the economic prosperity that west enjoys, no matter how much technological or economic production increases the overpopulation will keep all the generation on the same level as previous, and with overpopulation every efforts in this cause will be like throwing away everything in the sea, without gaining anything.

[Walter Polashenski · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5. I agreed with much he had to say, but I found the repetition tiresome.

[Ollie · Rating 3 out of 5]

There are few people I enjoy reading more than Bertrand Russell. Surprising because he’s a philosophers and those people are not my kind of people. Then again, Bertrand Russell isn’t your average philosopher. He’s a philosopher that understands the limitations of Philosophy with the ever-growing presence of science.

Traditionally, Bertrand Russell is known for his non-fiction writing ranging from social issues, politics, history, philosophy and war. What most don’t know (including myself) is that Russell had a brief attempt at fiction. It’s these short stories and essays that make the aptly titled Fact and Fiction stand out.

Can I go ahead and say that Russell was not the best non-fiction writer? I think that’s OK, because even he himself admits it. Although his short story the Right to Prevail or the Road to Lhasa is fine, it’s hard to make out what his other stories are trying to get at. Sci-fi? I’m not sure. Then again, the inclusion of his dreams in the Fiction section is delightful glimpse into how nerdy this extremely nerdy man’s dreams were.

It’s no surprise that Routledge has used this opportunity to also include some more of Russell’s non-fiction essays in this book. He was a very prolific writer after all, and these later writings of his mostly dealing with nuclear non-proliferation were as appropriate then as they are now. These are included along with more essays on education, freedom, and books that influenced him as a kid.

Fact and Fiction is another great collection of Russell’s writings and maybe his most personal one to date. Another winner.

[Rosie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Decently entertaining and interesting, but all the essays discussing nuclear weapons and the cold war bored me...Obviously, it's a subject that no longer feels very relevant to people of the current age, and I feel Russell's talent lies, not in the political arena, but in theory, ethics, philosophy, etc. I think his statements about the neutrality of science and the fact that both sides of the cold war were villainizing each other and had nonsensical ideologies were praiseworthy, but I felt quite uncertain about his proposals as to solutions, and, in general, it all just felt very out-of-date in comparison to some of his philosophical essays I've read, which were very interesting, particularly comparably. I didn't know ahead of time that there would be some narrative pieces in here, which was, at first, an unpleasant surprise, but I ended up quite liking them and wish there had been more of those than essays about nuclear disarmament and international government. Anyway, while I enjoyed this book moderately, it wasn't very much to my taste, and I'm definitely going to try to find books of Russell's that contain more philosophical essays than political ones next time I'm at the library.

[Amrit Sharma · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's a great collection of essays by one of the prominent philosophers of the last century.
In "Fact and Fiction", Russell is bold, concise, witty and convincing. Russell's humour and allegorical presentation can be seen throughout the text. He has rightly presented the existential threat of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction to the (ignorant) public. He has proposed some pragmatic solutions to this grave risk, that has the potential to wipe out the entire of humanity.
Russell's humanistic approach to modern perplexities is a valuable asset to newer generations. His logic, eternal optimism and inductive reasoning have made him one of the most rational members of the human species, to ever exist. His dream of a nuclear-free (peaceful) world is valid and attainable if all the people (including those in authority) maintain their sanity.
The book contains some of his personal experiences, in earlier sections, followed by some carefully woven humour in later parts.
I personally feel that "Fact and Fiction" is one of the few insightful books in philosophy, that is comprehensible and thought-provoking to the general public.
Happy reading!
Cheers!!

[bubonic · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book starts off with the literature that had a profound effect on Bertrand Russell both as young and older. It then takes a turn into discussing the Cold War and Nationalism. From there it journey's into a series of Parables about power and deception, which I felt was out of place. The last 100 pages deals with Nucelar war and disarmament during the Cold War. The book is surely out dated now, though the first 50 pages and his essay on the pros and cons of Nationalism are still relevant, especially in modern post-fact America. An o.k. read. By far one of his more disappointing books.

[inception333 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Russel is fun to read and at times he will throw you curve balls that will be difficult to hit. In this book Bertrand has a message for humanity (especially in the last half of the book). Bertrand's style of writing is fascinating and his double negatives are a joy to read.

[Gauhar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Russel is fun to read and at times he will throw you curve balls that will be difficult to hit. In this book Bertrand has a message for humanity (especially in the last half of the book). Bertrand's style of writing is fascinating and his double negatives are a joy to read.

[R.K. Cowles · Rating 4 out of 5]

3 3/4 stars

[Nguyên Trang · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mới đọc được 1 ít trong này. Sẽ tìm đọc full. Các triết gia khi viết văn học đều rất khá thú <3

[Muhammad Afaq khattak · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you want to study the basics of philosophy and politics, then read it. The best essay writings of Nobel Laureate Bertrand Russell.

[Sarah F. · Rating 4 out of 5]

I respect his insights on various topics. War and Peace is worth reading.

[Jackson Cyril · Rating 4 out of 5]

A collection of essays, talks and speeches produced by Russell from the 50's and early 60's. The beginning three essays I think are the most interesting; the first on authors (and books) who most influenced Russell (Percy Shelley, Ivan Turgenev, Ibsen, King Lear, Milton's prose, Gulliver's Travels, and Carlyle). The second essay titled "What is Freedom", which is a detailed examination of the various facets of Freedom, highlighting the limitations of Freedom and the many ways in which the term "Freedom" is twisted for ignoble means. The third, "What is Democracy", is a similar look at the concept of Democracy where the author examines the pitfalls and virtues of Democracy, analyzes the various shapes Democracy has taken over the ages, etc. The latter essays are especially useful in bringing alive the very real danger that nuclear war posed in the height of the Cold War as Russell courageously urged restraint, de-armament and called for peace.

[Kushal Srivastava · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dated and harps on the same issue in every essay, though the theme would be agreeable to anyone sane.