What do you think?
Rate this book
عبادة الإنسان الحر
This collection of essays is concerned with different ways of knowing; the particular problems of philosophy; and the ultimate nature of matter. They reveal Russell's lifelong preoccupation: the disentanglement with ever-increasing precision of what is subjective or intellectually cloudy from what is objective or capable of logical demonstration. In them we can see the Russell method in operation: intellectual analysis dissecting a problem to its bare bones. Also included is Bertrand Russel's celebrated essay "A Free Man's Worship". In it he maintains that a new and deeper faith can be constructed, not faith in a theological sense but faith in the power of reason; his faith in man's capacity to create his own world through his own effort.
227 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1910
340 people are currently reading
3,080 people want to read
About the author
Bertrand Russell
929books7,094followersBertrand 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 106 reviews
March 18, 2025
GOD IS A CIRCLE -
WHOSE CENTRE IS EVERYWHERE
AND CIRCUMFERENCE NOWHERE.
Mister Eckhart.
Each of us is born with a rudimentary ego, which we and our circumstances develop into a Real Sense of Our Selves.
And if we believe strongly, and have for a long time, that God exists, it is simply a characteristic of who we are, for us.
But there’s a catch.
Our perceptions and ideas of the world are fleeting.
And if we’re meditative by nature, we somehow absorb this Ungroundedness into ourselves, by going where the tide takes us in life.
That’s a pretty basic sense of insecurity.
If you’re pretty well satisfied with getting whatever you happen to be desiring at the moment, wherever the wind blows seems good enough.
But you’ll end up at the end of your life with a physical sense of sheer emptiness from life. Not to mention the resulting heavy weight of cynicism.
I’m not kidding.
Having a foundation makes all the difference.
And we all WILL have upsets to our sense of self this way. The higher our approach, the riskier the result - as in mystics like Eckhart and St Francis.
In other words, once we glimpse our Ungroundedness we must rationalize it to ourselves some substantial way. It seems to oppose our ideas of Goodness and Faith.
The mystics of Meister Eckhart’s ilk succeed in correcting this by believing that Being is born in Emptiness (as in the second Creation story in Genesis), and that this Emptiness, paradoxically, is actually the fullness of God.
And to paraphrase Eliot in his Dry Salvages, we have no choice but to venture out to sea.
And that is the very Ascent of Mount Carmel.
So Eckhart turns the loneliness of this apparent insubstantiality of physical and spiritual things into a Dance.
But Russell laughs at Scholasticism.
Russell believed in solid good sense: rather ironically, since he describes physical reality as relative in Our Knowledge of the External World.
I don’t laugh at mystical insights, finding a Zen-like profundity in Eckhartian scholastic insights. You see where this is going, now?
Turns out Russell is perfectly ENTITLED to discredit Faith. As are we all nowadays.
But, as it turns out, Eckhart’s is ALSO an alternate - but by contrast WELL-GROUNDED - path to RELIGIOUSLY sound common sense.
For if you can’t grasp the amazing depth of Mysticism now -
You may be Out of your depth later on.
Russell, in the dedicatory poem of his Autobiography, states that one thing he never got out of life was Peace.
Love, maybe, in his final marriage - but lasting peace? No.
And peace is the only panacea that can truly HEAL us...
And save us from our ceaseless discontent.
WHOSE CENTRE IS EVERYWHERE
AND CIRCUMFERENCE NOWHERE.
Mister Eckhart.
Each of us is born with a rudimentary ego, which we and our circumstances develop into a Real Sense of Our Selves.
And if we believe strongly, and have for a long time, that God exists, it is simply a characteristic of who we are, for us.
But there’s a catch.
Our perceptions and ideas of the world are fleeting.
And if we’re meditative by nature, we somehow absorb this Ungroundedness into ourselves, by going where the tide takes us in life.
That’s a pretty basic sense of insecurity.
If you’re pretty well satisfied with getting whatever you happen to be desiring at the moment, wherever the wind blows seems good enough.
But you’ll end up at the end of your life with a physical sense of sheer emptiness from life. Not to mention the resulting heavy weight of cynicism.
I’m not kidding.
Having a foundation makes all the difference.
And we all WILL have upsets to our sense of self this way. The higher our approach, the riskier the result - as in mystics like Eckhart and St Francis.
In other words, once we glimpse our Ungroundedness we must rationalize it to ourselves some substantial way. It seems to oppose our ideas of Goodness and Faith.
The mystics of Meister Eckhart’s ilk succeed in correcting this by believing that Being is born in Emptiness (as in the second Creation story in Genesis), and that this Emptiness, paradoxically, is actually the fullness of God.
And to paraphrase Eliot in his Dry Salvages, we have no choice but to venture out to sea.
And that is the very Ascent of Mount Carmel.
So Eckhart turns the loneliness of this apparent insubstantiality of physical and spiritual things into a Dance.
But Russell laughs at Scholasticism.
Russell believed in solid good sense: rather ironically, since he describes physical reality as relative in Our Knowledge of the External World.
I don’t laugh at mystical insights, finding a Zen-like profundity in Eckhartian scholastic insights. You see where this is going, now?
Turns out Russell is perfectly ENTITLED to discredit Faith. As are we all nowadays.
But, as it turns out, Eckhart’s is ALSO an alternate - but by contrast WELL-GROUNDED - path to RELIGIOUSLY sound common sense.
For if you can’t grasp the amazing depth of Mysticism now -
You may be Out of your depth later on.
Russell, in the dedicatory poem of his Autobiography, states that one thing he never got out of life was Peace.
Love, maybe, in his final marriage - but lasting peace? No.
And peace is the only panacea that can truly HEAL us...
And save us from our ceaseless discontent.
June 15, 2016
There is something strange about Russell’s writing. Although he often adopts a formal, even stilted, style, and tackles the most abstruse logical problems, his personality is always floating in the background, barely out of sight. The feeling is like Russell is there, in the room with you, reading aloud from his work. His ability to adopt this warm, personal style while appearing not to do so is why I think he is a fantastic writer.
This is related to another persistent feature of his writing. When he is laying forth a theory or an argument, I often feel that Russell is trying just as hard to convince himself as his audience. He was a man skeptical to the core, and I get the feeling that he was only capable of wholeheartedly believing in things—even logical theories—in short, passionate bursts; and that, after reflection, he would find flaws in every one of his former opinions. The vacillation of his ideas throughout his career shows this in full evidence.
This quality is apparent in the first essay, “Mysticism and Logic.� Russell starts off in praising philosophers who have successfully combined the two notions, and expresses his wish that the mystical impulse be given its due respect. And then he proceeds to demolish every doctrine or idea posited by mystical thinkers. By the end of the essay, the reader is more averse to mysticism than before he started. (For a more productive attempt to combine the two, see Wittgenstein’s Tractatus.)
Then there’s his masterpiece of prose, “A Free Man’s Worship.� That is a piece of writing more passionate that I could have ever thought possible from polite, civilized Bertrand. And yet, in the back of the reader’s mind is Russell’s cordial warning in the preface that he later came to find the sentiments expressed somewhat naïve. As I said, an incorrigible skeptic.
It is getting to be something of a cliché to say this, but I find it valuable to read through this philosophy even if you don’t believe it. Even the late Bertrand Russell himself didn’t believe it. But his mind was cast in a unique mold. Russell was capable—or at least as nearly capable as can be achieved—of contemplation without sentimentality or dogmatism. He questioned everything: an exercise incomparably valuable, if not ultimately productive.
What’s more, Russell’s ability to get to the very heart of a question, to probe it with his logical pincers until every strand of the thing is clearly laid out on the dissection table, is always astounding. Merely following the train of his thought is worthwhile, even if the train leads into blind alleys. Plus, what’s so bad about blind alleys?
This is related to another persistent feature of his writing. When he is laying forth a theory or an argument, I often feel that Russell is trying just as hard to convince himself as his audience. He was a man skeptical to the core, and I get the feeling that he was only capable of wholeheartedly believing in things—even logical theories—in short, passionate bursts; and that, after reflection, he would find flaws in every one of his former opinions. The vacillation of his ideas throughout his career shows this in full evidence.
This quality is apparent in the first essay, “Mysticism and Logic.� Russell starts off in praising philosophers who have successfully combined the two notions, and expresses his wish that the mystical impulse be given its due respect. And then he proceeds to demolish every doctrine or idea posited by mystical thinkers. By the end of the essay, the reader is more averse to mysticism than before he started. (For a more productive attempt to combine the two, see Wittgenstein’s Tractatus.)
Then there’s his masterpiece of prose, “A Free Man’s Worship.� That is a piece of writing more passionate that I could have ever thought possible from polite, civilized Bertrand. And yet, in the back of the reader’s mind is Russell’s cordial warning in the preface that he later came to find the sentiments expressed somewhat naïve. As I said, an incorrigible skeptic.
It is getting to be something of a cliché to say this, but I find it valuable to read through this philosophy even if you don’t believe it. Even the late Bertrand Russell himself didn’t believe it. But his mind was cast in a unique mold. Russell was capable—or at least as nearly capable as can be achieved—of contemplation without sentimentality or dogmatism. He questioned everything: an exercise incomparably valuable, if not ultimately productive.
What’s more, Russell’s ability to get to the very heart of a question, to probe it with his logical pincers until every strand of the thing is clearly laid out on the dissection table, is always astounding. Merely following the train of his thought is worthwhile, even if the train leads into blind alleys. Plus, what’s so bad about blind alleys?
May 25, 2019
این مجموعه که با قلم گیرای نجف دریابندری بهفارس� ترجمه شده، گزیدها� است از مقالهها� برتراند راسل، فیلسوف پرآوازۀ انگلیسی. فارغ از چند مقالها� که بیشازح� تخصصی است، اکثر مقالهه� برای مخاطب عامی که به اندیشهگر� دلبستگ� داشته باشد، خواندنی و جذاب است. از این میان، سه مقالۀ «چگونه مینویسم� و «چرا به فلسفه پرداختم»� و خصوصاً «وجود خدا» را خواندنیت� ارزیابی میکن�. در مقالۀ آخر، برتراند راسل با فردریک کاپلستون، فیلسوف بنامِ دیگر، بر سر وجود خدا و اثباتپذیربود� یا اثباتپذیرنبود� آن مناظره میکن�. این مطلب، سوای لذتی که از مواجهه با قدرت استدلال دو فیسلوفِ توانا نصیب خواننده میکند� عجز آدمی را در رسیدن به نتیجۀ قاطع در بسیاری امور زندگی بر او آشکار میکن� و تلنگری جدی است به بشر تا از توهمِ دانایی و فریب توانایی برحذر باشد.
سیاهۀ مقالهه� به این قرار است:
ـ چگونه مینویس�
ـ چرا به فلسفه پرداختم
ـ چند تماس فلسفی
ـ فلسفۀ زمان ما
ـ عرفان و منطق
ـ فلسفه در قرن بیستم
ـ پراگماتیسم
ـ ذهن و ماده
ـ وجود خدا
ـ تقاضای روشناندیش�
ـ دانش و حکمت
سیاهۀ مقالهه� به این قرار است:
ـ چگونه مینویس�
ـ چرا به فلسفه پرداختم
ـ چند تماس فلسفی
ـ فلسفۀ زمان ما
ـ عرفان و منطق
ـ فلسفه در قرن بیستم
ـ پراگماتیسم
ـ ذهن و ماده
ـ وجود خدا
ـ تقاضای روشناندیش�
ـ دانش و حکمت
December 11, 2024
“That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins…only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built."
“The fundamental epistemological principle…is this: Every proposition which we can understand must be composed wholly of constituents with which we are acquainted.�
“It follows that an ‘event� is not a particular, but some universal of which there may be many instances. It follows also that an ‘event� must be something short of the whole state of the universe, since it is highly improbable that this will recur.�
“The beauty of Tragedy does but make visible a quality which, in more or less obvious shapes, is present always and everywhere in life. In the spectacle of Death, in the endurance of intolerable pain, an 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.�
“For countless ages the hot nebula whirled aimlessly through space. At length it began to take shape, the central mass threw off planets cooled, boiling seas and burning mountains heaved and tossed, from black masses of cloud hot sheets of rain deluged the barely solid crust…from the monsters, as the play unfolded itself, Man was born, with the power of thought, the knowledge of good and evil.�
“The vision of beauty is possible only to unfettered contemplation, to thoughts not weighted by the load of eager wishes; and thus Freedom comes only to those who no longer as of life that it shall yield them any of those personal goods that are subject to the mutations of Time.�
“The mystic insight begins with the sense of a mystery unveiled, of a hidden wisdom now suddenly become certain beyond the possibility of a doubt. The sense of certainty and revelation comes earlier than any definite belief. The definite beliefs at which mystics arrive are the result of reflection upon the inarticulate experience gained in the moment of insight…The first and most direct outcome of the moment of illumination is belief in the possibility of a way of knowledge which may be called revelation or insight or intuition, as contrasted with sense, reason, and analysis, which are regarded as blind guides leading to the morass of illusion. Closely connected with this belief is the conception of aReality behind the world of appearance and utterly different from it. This Reality is regarded with an admiration often amounting to worship�.the poet, the artist, and the lover are seekers after that glory; the haunting beauty that they pursue is the faint reflection of its sun. But the mystic lives in the full light of the vision."
“Time builds and destroys all things.�
“The greatest men who have been philosophers have felt the need both of science and of mysticism: the attempt to harmonize the two was what made their life, and what always must, for all its arduous uncertainty, make philosophy, to some minds, a greater thing than either science or religion.�
“You are describing a strange scene, and strange prisoners.�
“They resemble us, I replied.�
“Most men, for example, have in their nature meanness, vanities, and envies of which they are quite unconscious, though even their best friends can perceive them without any difficulty.�
“There is some sense—easier to feel than to state—in which time in an unimportant and superficial characteristic of reality…A truer image of the world, I think, is obtained by picturing things as entering into the stream of time from an eternal world outside, than from a view which regards time as the devouring tyrant of all that is.�
“All our thinking consists of convenient fictions, imaginary congealings of the stream: reality flows on in spite of all our fictions, and though it can be lived, it cannot be conceived in thought.�
“The fundamental epistemological principle…is this: Every proposition which we can understand must be composed wholly of constituents with which we are acquainted.�
“It follows that an ‘event� is not a particular, but some universal of which there may be many instances. It follows also that an ‘event� must be something short of the whole state of the universe, since it is highly improbable that this will recur.�
“The beauty of Tragedy does but make visible a quality which, in more or less obvious shapes, is present always and everywhere in life. In the spectacle of Death, in the endurance of intolerable pain, an 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.�
“For countless ages the hot nebula whirled aimlessly through space. At length it began to take shape, the central mass threw off planets cooled, boiling seas and burning mountains heaved and tossed, from black masses of cloud hot sheets of rain deluged the barely solid crust…from the monsters, as the play unfolded itself, Man was born, with the power of thought, the knowledge of good and evil.�
“The vision of beauty is possible only to unfettered contemplation, to thoughts not weighted by the load of eager wishes; and thus Freedom comes only to those who no longer as of life that it shall yield them any of those personal goods that are subject to the mutations of Time.�
“The mystic insight begins with the sense of a mystery unveiled, of a hidden wisdom now suddenly become certain beyond the possibility of a doubt. The sense of certainty and revelation comes earlier than any definite belief. The definite beliefs at which mystics arrive are the result of reflection upon the inarticulate experience gained in the moment of insight…The first and most direct outcome of the moment of illumination is belief in the possibility of a way of knowledge which may be called revelation or insight or intuition, as contrasted with sense, reason, and analysis, which are regarded as blind guides leading to the morass of illusion. Closely connected with this belief is the conception of aReality behind the world of appearance and utterly different from it. This Reality is regarded with an admiration often amounting to worship�.the poet, the artist, and the lover are seekers after that glory; the haunting beauty that they pursue is the faint reflection of its sun. But the mystic lives in the full light of the vision."
“Time builds and destroys all things.�
“The greatest men who have been philosophers have felt the need both of science and of mysticism: the attempt to harmonize the two was what made their life, and what always must, for all its arduous uncertainty, make philosophy, to some minds, a greater thing than either science or religion.�
“You are describing a strange scene, and strange prisoners.�
“They resemble us, I replied.�
“Most men, for example, have in their nature meanness, vanities, and envies of which they are quite unconscious, though even their best friends can perceive them without any difficulty.�
“There is some sense—easier to feel than to state—in which time in an unimportant and superficial characteristic of reality…A truer image of the world, I think, is obtained by picturing things as entering into the stream of time from an eternal world outside, than from a view which regards time as the devouring tyrant of all that is.�
“All our thinking consists of convenient fictions, imaginary congealings of the stream: reality flows on in spite of all our fictions, and though it can be lived, it cannot be conceived in thought.�
June 29, 2012
الكتاب عبارة عن عشر مقالات كتبها برتراند راسل في صحف عدة, أهمها مقالة عبادة الإنسان الحر التي اختير عنوانها اسماً للكتاب..
فلسفة برتراند راسل غنية عن التعريف و الكتاب أكثر من رائع كما أن الترجمة ترجمة فيلسوف حقيقي !
استمتعتُ كثيراً بقراءته استمتاعي بكل ما يمت للفلسفة بصلة و أكثر قليلاً .
فلسفة برتراند راسل غنية عن التعريف و الكتاب أكثر من رائع كما أن الترجمة ترجمة فيلسوف حقيقي !
استمتعتُ كثيراً بقراءته استمتاعي بكل ما يمت للفلسفة بصلة و أكثر قليلاً .
April 25, 2020
عظيم جدًا .. رابع كتاب أقرؤه للفيلسوف، ومع كل كتاب تزيد قناعتي بأنني سأعود لقراءته أكثر من مرة، وربما باللغة الأصلية في المرة القادمة.
December 2, 2019
مقالاتي از راسل، فيلسوف تحليلي معروف قرن 20
اين كتاب مجموعه 11 مقاله نه چندان مرتبطه كه دريابندري انتخاب كرده و در كنار هم قرار داده. عنوان كتاب هم بر اساس يكي از اين مقالات انتخاب شده. بعضي از اين مقالات ساده و بدون پيچيدگيه و بعضي ديگه از نظر فلسفي سنگينتره ولي در كل به نظرم براي خواندن كتاب نياز به مطالعات فلسفي قبلي نداريد و علاقه به اين مباحث كفايت مي كنه.
مقاله اول "چگونه مینویس�"، اشاره اي به تجربه شخصي نوشتن راسل داره و در كل در اين مقاله توصيه مي كنه كه ساده و روان بنويسيد و به مضمون بيشتر از صورت مقاله توجه كنيد.
مقاله دوم "چرا به فلسفه پرداختم"، به علاقه خودش به شناخت جهان و تمايلات ديني انسانها و رياضي و ارتباطش با فلسفه اشاره مي كنه.
مقاله سوم "چند تماس فلسفی"، به نحوه آشناييش با ويتگنشتاين و فرگه و چند تن ديگه از فلاسفه موثر قرن 20 مي پردازه كه در نوع خودش جالب بود.
مقاله چهارم "فلسفۀ زمان ما" به ارزش پرداختن به فلسفه در جهان معاصر، تاكيد داره.
در مقاله پنجم " عرفان و منطق، "ابتدا به تمايز عرفان و علم اشاره مي كنه. سپس صورت بندي جالبي از عرفان ارائه كرده . عرفان مورد نظر راسل عرفان برگسوني است كه شهود مورد اشاره عرفا رو، با غريزه حيواني يكي دونسته!! و بر اين اساس به نقد عرفان پرداخته و نهايتا ميگه بهتره عرفان رو به جاي شيوه شناخت به عنوان يك شيوه زندگي در نظر بگيريم. شخصا فكر مي كنم عرفان برگسوني، عرفان نيست و راسل هم برداشتش از عرفان خيلي جدي نيست. وقتي هم به شيوه زندگي عرفاني اشاره داره بيشتر رواقي زيستن مد نظرشه. در كل به نظرم ضعيفترين مقاله كتاب بود.
در مقاله ششم " فلسفه در قرن بیستم،" به نحوه شكل گيري فلسفه پراگماتيسم در قرن 20 پرداخته و به شخصيتهاي مهم اين نحله اشاره مي كنه.
در مقاله هفتم " پراگماتیسم، " ابتدا مباني اين فلسفه رو توضيح ميده و بعد نقدش مي كنه. طولاني ترين و فلسفي ترين مقاله كتابه.
مقاله هشتم " ذهن و ماده "، مقاله محبوب من در كتابه. با استفاده از قوانين رياضي و فيزيك جديد به اين نكته پرداخته كه چرا مفاهيم مكان و زمان مفاهيمي واقعي نيستند! بلكه اعتباريند. استدلالهاي جالبي هم مي كنه كه لازمه براي فهميدن مجدد مراجعه كنم. در كل اين مقاله براي من خيلي جذاب و استدلالهايش جديد بود.
مقاله نهم " وجود خدا"، و بخشي از مناظره كاپلستون و لرد راسله كه گويا در تلويزيون بي بي سي صورت پذيرفته. من كه كتاب رو مي خوندم انتظار داشتم هر لحظه دعوا بشه ولي انصاف و روشن انديشي و منطقي بودن اين دو فيلسوف معروف قرن بيستم علي رغم اختلافات جدي، واقعا جالبه و آموزنده.
مقاله دهم " تقاضای روشناندیش�"، هم مقاله اي بود كه از زاويه ديد يك فيلسوف تحليلي دقيق، به معاني كلماتي مثل دموكراسي پرداخته. اين مقاله هم به نظرم جالب اومد.
در آخرين مقاله " دانش و حکمت "، به تفاوت دانش و حكمت پرداخته و گفته كه دنيا به هر دو نياز داره. به نظر مياد منظورش از حكمت دوري از غرور و تعصب و داشتن نوعي حس تواضع و تساهله.
در كل به نظرم در حد رفع كُتي، كتاب بدي نبود.
اين كتاب مجموعه 11 مقاله نه چندان مرتبطه كه دريابندري انتخاب كرده و در كنار هم قرار داده. عنوان كتاب هم بر اساس يكي از اين مقالات انتخاب شده. بعضي از اين مقالات ساده و بدون پيچيدگيه و بعضي ديگه از نظر فلسفي سنگينتره ولي در كل به نظرم براي خواندن كتاب نياز به مطالعات فلسفي قبلي نداريد و علاقه به اين مباحث كفايت مي كنه.
مقاله اول "چگونه مینویس�"، اشاره اي به تجربه شخصي نوشتن راسل داره و در كل در اين مقاله توصيه مي كنه كه ساده و روان بنويسيد و به مضمون بيشتر از صورت مقاله توجه كنيد.
مقاله دوم "چرا به فلسفه پرداختم"، به علاقه خودش به شناخت جهان و تمايلات ديني انسانها و رياضي و ارتباطش با فلسفه اشاره مي كنه.
مقاله سوم "چند تماس فلسفی"، به نحوه آشناييش با ويتگنشتاين و فرگه و چند تن ديگه از فلاسفه موثر قرن 20 مي پردازه كه در نوع خودش جالب بود.
مقاله چهارم "فلسفۀ زمان ما" به ارزش پرداختن به فلسفه در جهان معاصر، تاكيد داره.
در مقاله پنجم " عرفان و منطق، "ابتدا به تمايز عرفان و علم اشاره مي كنه. سپس صورت بندي جالبي از عرفان ارائه كرده . عرفان مورد نظر راسل عرفان برگسوني است كه شهود مورد اشاره عرفا رو، با غريزه حيواني يكي دونسته!! و بر اين اساس به نقد عرفان پرداخته و نهايتا ميگه بهتره عرفان رو به جاي شيوه شناخت به عنوان يك شيوه زندگي در نظر بگيريم. شخصا فكر مي كنم عرفان برگسوني، عرفان نيست و راسل هم برداشتش از عرفان خيلي جدي نيست. وقتي هم به شيوه زندگي عرفاني اشاره داره بيشتر رواقي زيستن مد نظرشه. در كل به نظرم ضعيفترين مقاله كتاب بود.
در مقاله ششم " فلسفه در قرن بیستم،" به نحوه شكل گيري فلسفه پراگماتيسم در قرن 20 پرداخته و به شخصيتهاي مهم اين نحله اشاره مي كنه.
در مقاله هفتم " پراگماتیسم، " ابتدا مباني اين فلسفه رو توضيح ميده و بعد نقدش مي كنه. طولاني ترين و فلسفي ترين مقاله كتابه.
مقاله هشتم " ذهن و ماده "، مقاله محبوب من در كتابه. با استفاده از قوانين رياضي و فيزيك جديد به اين نكته پرداخته كه چرا مفاهيم مكان و زمان مفاهيمي واقعي نيستند! بلكه اعتباريند. استدلالهاي جالبي هم مي كنه كه لازمه براي فهميدن مجدد مراجعه كنم. در كل اين مقاله براي من خيلي جذاب و استدلالهايش جديد بود.
مقاله نهم " وجود خدا"، و بخشي از مناظره كاپلستون و لرد راسله كه گويا در تلويزيون بي بي سي صورت پذيرفته. من كه كتاب رو مي خوندم انتظار داشتم هر لحظه دعوا بشه ولي انصاف و روشن انديشي و منطقي بودن اين دو فيلسوف معروف قرن بيستم علي رغم اختلافات جدي، واقعا جالبه و آموزنده.
مقاله دهم " تقاضای روشناندیش�"، هم مقاله اي بود كه از زاويه ديد يك فيلسوف تحليلي دقيق، به معاني كلماتي مثل دموكراسي پرداخته. اين مقاله هم به نظرم جالب اومد.
در آخرين مقاله " دانش و حکمت "، به تفاوت دانش و حكمت پرداخته و گفته كه دنيا به هر دو نياز داره. به نظر مياد منظورش از حكمت دوري از غرور و تعصب و داشتن نوعي حس تواضع و تساهله.
در كل به نظرم در حد رفع كُتي، كتاب بدي نبود.
September 2, 2020
مجموعة من المقالات المتفرقة التي نُشرت من قبل المؤلف في المجلات والصُحف...
رائع رغم تشتتي لسوء الترجمة.
وأعتقد أن قراءة واحدة لا تكفيّه، كما هو الحال مع جميع مؤلفاته.
رائع رغم تشتتي لسوء الترجمة.
وأعتقد أن قراءة واحدة لا تكفيّه، كما هو الحال مع جميع مؤلفاته.
August 2, 2020
Mysticism and Logic (1918) is a collection of essays by Bertrand Russell, which presents his viewpoints during the period 1902-1915. That is, all the essays included represent Russell’s first phase as a philosopher (second if you include his youthful Hegelianism).
As he mentions in the preface, the first five essays are popular, while the last five essays are more technical and aimed at a professional audience. The first five essays have the overarching theme of the refutation of mystical philosophy. According to Russell, all of prior philosophy (especially metaphysics) is rooted in ethical and/or religious ideas. This started with Parmenides and continued, through Spinoza, Kant and Hegel, up to his time. These philosophers were system builders, and the system they tried to build was a world that fitted their preconceived ethical and religious feelings.
This is the primary cause of the lack of progress in philosophy, while the sciences (especially in Russell’s time) were progressing at a spectacular speed and into spectacular depths. It is time philosophers started to take from science what is useful � that is, no more cherry picking from scientific results, and start applying the scientific method to philosophical problems.
Of course, here Russell falls back on his own method of analysis. In this view, philosophy should be solely occupied with studying the relations between concepts (symbolic logic) and studying the forms of propositions (formal logic). In the end, the philosopher works with propositional functions and offers general and a priori propositions, to be used by the scientist. This is a radical break with the metaphysics of the past � and a very fruitful approach to philosophy.
With the help of the analytical method, Russell studied problems in mathematics, physics, psychology, language, etc. One original theory that resulted from this approach is Russell’s analysis of the conflict between psychological and physical theories of perception. The physicist starts from objects, which cause certain effects on/in our body, which results in thoughts and other mental activities. The psychologist (and physiologist) starts from our thoughts and mental life and works his or her way ‘back� to the outside. This leads to insoluble problems about the existence of the outer world and its connection to our thoughts.
For Russell, objects are classes of particulars, and what I see is just one of these particulars. Thus, when I see the sun, what I see is just one instance of the sun � my perspective of the sun � and the sun itself, as thing, is the class of all its particular instances (including the one within my perspective). In short, perspectives and things � the stuff of psychology and the stuff of physics � are just two ways of classifying particulars.
This theory has to address the problem of permanence: Do things exist when I am not perceiving them? And Russell is able to attack this problem with his theory: permanence originates in our notion of continuity � we assume things to continue in time and space. And it is continuity that Russell dismantles: things are simply the series of collections of their particular instances. We either perceive them or we don’t. When a thing moves, we think we perceive the movement of the thing, while all we perceive is the thing at some particular instants in spacetime. Common sense deludes us and philosophers haven’t realized this leads to their insurmountable problems.
This, by the way, requires there to be two sorts of spaces: (1) private space (our perspective of the thing) and (2) the arrangement of all possible private spaces (all possible perspectives of the thing). And this means the world is nothing but a collection of series of collections of particulars, existing in six dimensions. Here we see Russell’s analytical method leading him to a pluralistic worldview (following William James) and a form of realism that overcomes the pitfalls of naïve realism.
In a similar way he attacks the notions of causality, knowledge and the relation between physics and our sense-data. He doesn’t offer clear cut answers or certain theories: he offers hypotheses that are possible and undermines the ground for the alternative theories instead of trying to refute them. For example, when dealing with Kant’s a priori intuitions, he acknowledges this claim is irrefutable, yet the grounds which led Kant to postulating this theory are delusions and hence the theory becomes simply one alternative. In general, Russell’s sole aim is to offer viable hypotheses to philosophical problems that require the least amount of postulates. As he says in one of his essays: “Wherever possible, logical constructions are to be substituted for inferred entities.�
In sum: Russell tries to reduce all philosophical problems to logical problems; through analysis cut up these problems into solvable and unsolvable parts; solve the parts that can be solved; and formulate a theory which makes the unsolvable parts redundant. All should be reduced to logical propositions, and in the end to a handful of logical axioms. (These essays were written during the time when he was still heavily engaged in reducing all of mathematics to logic, and all of logic to some basic principles.) Which makes me wonder: he utterly thrashes all the earlier system builders, yet he himself is heavily rooted in the Aristotelean tradition of viewing all of the sciences to be (ideally) deduced from logic. If this isn’t system building, I don’t know what is�
Anyway, this collection of essays is truly a masterpiece in clear thinking and clear writing. I can recommend it to anyone interested in these types of subjects. For people who are (relatively) new to philosophy and science: perhaps ‘just� read the first five essays.
As he mentions in the preface, the first five essays are popular, while the last five essays are more technical and aimed at a professional audience. The first five essays have the overarching theme of the refutation of mystical philosophy. According to Russell, all of prior philosophy (especially metaphysics) is rooted in ethical and/or religious ideas. This started with Parmenides and continued, through Spinoza, Kant and Hegel, up to his time. These philosophers were system builders, and the system they tried to build was a world that fitted their preconceived ethical and religious feelings.
This is the primary cause of the lack of progress in philosophy, while the sciences (especially in Russell’s time) were progressing at a spectacular speed and into spectacular depths. It is time philosophers started to take from science what is useful � that is, no more cherry picking from scientific results, and start applying the scientific method to philosophical problems.
Of course, here Russell falls back on his own method of analysis. In this view, philosophy should be solely occupied with studying the relations between concepts (symbolic logic) and studying the forms of propositions (formal logic). In the end, the philosopher works with propositional functions and offers general and a priori propositions, to be used by the scientist. This is a radical break with the metaphysics of the past � and a very fruitful approach to philosophy.
With the help of the analytical method, Russell studied problems in mathematics, physics, psychology, language, etc. One original theory that resulted from this approach is Russell’s analysis of the conflict between psychological and physical theories of perception. The physicist starts from objects, which cause certain effects on/in our body, which results in thoughts and other mental activities. The psychologist (and physiologist) starts from our thoughts and mental life and works his or her way ‘back� to the outside. This leads to insoluble problems about the existence of the outer world and its connection to our thoughts.
For Russell, objects are classes of particulars, and what I see is just one of these particulars. Thus, when I see the sun, what I see is just one instance of the sun � my perspective of the sun � and the sun itself, as thing, is the class of all its particular instances (including the one within my perspective). In short, perspectives and things � the stuff of psychology and the stuff of physics � are just two ways of classifying particulars.
This theory has to address the problem of permanence: Do things exist when I am not perceiving them? And Russell is able to attack this problem with his theory: permanence originates in our notion of continuity � we assume things to continue in time and space. And it is continuity that Russell dismantles: things are simply the series of collections of their particular instances. We either perceive them or we don’t. When a thing moves, we think we perceive the movement of the thing, while all we perceive is the thing at some particular instants in spacetime. Common sense deludes us and philosophers haven’t realized this leads to their insurmountable problems.
This, by the way, requires there to be two sorts of spaces: (1) private space (our perspective of the thing) and (2) the arrangement of all possible private spaces (all possible perspectives of the thing). And this means the world is nothing but a collection of series of collections of particulars, existing in six dimensions. Here we see Russell’s analytical method leading him to a pluralistic worldview (following William James) and a form of realism that overcomes the pitfalls of naïve realism.
In a similar way he attacks the notions of causality, knowledge and the relation between physics and our sense-data. He doesn’t offer clear cut answers or certain theories: he offers hypotheses that are possible and undermines the ground for the alternative theories instead of trying to refute them. For example, when dealing with Kant’s a priori intuitions, he acknowledges this claim is irrefutable, yet the grounds which led Kant to postulating this theory are delusions and hence the theory becomes simply one alternative. In general, Russell’s sole aim is to offer viable hypotheses to philosophical problems that require the least amount of postulates. As he says in one of his essays: “Wherever possible, logical constructions are to be substituted for inferred entities.�
In sum: Russell tries to reduce all philosophical problems to logical problems; through analysis cut up these problems into solvable and unsolvable parts; solve the parts that can be solved; and formulate a theory which makes the unsolvable parts redundant. All should be reduced to logical propositions, and in the end to a handful of logical axioms. (These essays were written during the time when he was still heavily engaged in reducing all of mathematics to logic, and all of logic to some basic principles.) Which makes me wonder: he utterly thrashes all the earlier system builders, yet he himself is heavily rooted in the Aristotelean tradition of viewing all of the sciences to be (ideally) deduced from logic. If this isn’t system building, I don’t know what is�
Anyway, this collection of essays is truly a masterpiece in clear thinking and clear writing. I can recommend it to anyone interested in these types of subjects. For people who are (relatively) new to philosophy and science: perhaps ‘just� read the first five essays.
February 25, 2014
إذا كنت تعتقد أنك تمتلك عقلا ً متشككا ً تحليلا ً، فلتقرأ هذا الكتاب لتتعرف على مستوى أعلى من الشك والتحليل.
فأما الشك ، ففى المقالات التي يتضمنها الكتاب ، يُخضع رسل أكثر الأفكار بديهية ً تحت الفخص والتدقيق لتكتشتف إشكالات لا حصر لها فى ما يمر على أذهاننا يوميا ً بلا أي تساؤل أو شك. ولعل أكثر ما حاز انتباهي هو تنفيده لقانون السببية فى العلم فى الفصل التاسع "عن مفهوم السبب".
أما عن التحليل ، فرسل يعتمد فى فلسفته على ما يسميه بالطريقة العلمية فى الفلسفة ، وهي (كما سيشرحها فى الفصل السادس من الكتاب) قادرة على ان تعطي اجابات على الاسئلة الفلسفية لها جدارة الإجابات العلمية ، نظرا ً لأنها تتبع اسلوبا ً تحليليا ًكالعلم.
بعض الأفكار التي يقدمها الكتاب بسيط ويسهل فهمه من المرة الأولى ، وبعضها معقد فيضطرك إلى قرائته أكثر من مرة ، وبعضها (وهذه واحدة فقط فى رأيي) معقد جدا ً فيضطرك إلى قراءة شرح له فى مصادر أخرى. ولكن بالإضافة لفائدة الكتاب الفلسفية ، فإن للكتاب فائدة كبرى فى تنمية الملكة التحليلية . فحتى وإن واجهت صعوبات مع بعض أفكاره ، ستخرج من الكتاب مستفيدا ً.
ملحوظة : الترجمة ليست جيدة ، وربما هذا يضفى صعوبة أخرى على الموضوع أثناء قرائته . إن كنت تجيد الإنجليزية فمن الأفضل قراءة الكتاب بلغته الأصلية .
جميع المقالات التي يتضمنها الكتاب موجودة بلغتها الأصلية تحت رخصة
فأما الشك ، ففى المقالات التي يتضمنها الكتاب ، يُخضع رسل أكثر الأفكار بديهية ً تحت الفخص والتدقيق لتكتشتف إشكالات لا حصر لها فى ما يمر على أذهاننا يوميا ً بلا أي تساؤل أو شك. ولعل أكثر ما حاز انتباهي هو تنفيده لقانون السببية فى العلم فى الفصل التاسع "عن مفهوم السبب".
أما عن التحليل ، فرسل يعتمد فى فلسفته على ما يسميه بالطريقة العلمية فى الفلسفة ، وهي (كما سيشرحها فى الفصل السادس من الكتاب) قادرة على ان تعطي اجابات على الاسئلة الفلسفية لها جدارة الإجابات العلمية ، نظرا ً لأنها تتبع اسلوبا ً تحليليا ًكالعلم.
بعض الأفكار التي يقدمها الكتاب بسيط ويسهل فهمه من المرة الأولى ، وبعضها معقد فيضطرك إلى قرائته أكثر من مرة ، وبعضها (وهذه واحدة فقط فى رأيي) معقد جدا ً فيضطرك إلى قراءة شرح له فى مصادر أخرى. ولكن بالإضافة لفائدة الكتاب الفلسفية ، فإن للكتاب فائدة كبرى فى تنمية الملكة التحليلية . فحتى وإن واجهت صعوبات مع بعض أفكاره ، ستخرج من الكتاب مستفيدا ً.
ملحوظة : الترجمة ليست جيدة ، وربما هذا يضفى صعوبة أخرى على الموضوع أثناء قرائته . إن كنت تجيد الإنجليزية فمن الأفضل قراءة الكتاب بلغته الأصلية .
جميع المقالات التي يتضمنها الكتاب موجودة بلغتها الأصلية تحت رخصة
December 30, 2014
Very deep essays on the human being, being human with essay I. "Mysticism and Logic" the most popular, but don't stop reading at the end of that essay. My favorite that resonated the most with me was III. "A Free Man's Worship" in which Russell struggles with finding meaning in life through helping fellow travelers along the journey through life. A life changing read for sure! One of the most compassionate authors for sure. A true foul to the writings of authors such as Rand and Friedman's pro Capitalism stances.
Favorite quote:
���The life of Man is a long march through the night, surrounded by invisible foes, tortured by weariness and pain, towards a goal that few can hope to reach, and where none may tarry long. One by one, as they march, our comrades vanish form our sight, seized by the silent orders of omnipotent Death. Very brief is the time in which we can help them, in which their happiness or misery is decided. Be it ours to shed sunshine on their path, to lighten their sorrows by the balm of sympathy, to give them the pure joy of a never-tiring affection, to strengthen failing courage, to instill faith in times of despair.���
Favorite quote:
���The life of Man is a long march through the night, surrounded by invisible foes, tortured by weariness and pain, towards a goal that few can hope to reach, and where none may tarry long. One by one, as they march, our comrades vanish form our sight, seized by the silent orders of omnipotent Death. Very brief is the time in which we can help them, in which their happiness or misery is decided. Be it ours to shed sunshine on their path, to lighten their sorrows by the balm of sympathy, to give them the pure joy of a never-tiring affection, to strengthen failing courage, to instill faith in times of despair.���
August 6, 2014
Sometimes brilliant, but sometimes tedious examination of philosophy and science, good and evil, logic and mysticism, and knowledge itself.
September 15, 2015
چرا به فلسفه پرداختم؟
انگیزه هایی که مردمان را به فلسفه کشانده گوناگون بوده هست.با حرمت ترین انگیزه ها میل به شناختن جهان بوده هست.در زمان قدیم که فلسفه و علم از یکدیگر متمایز نبودند،این انگیزه غالب بود.انگیزه دیگری که در قدیم بسیار موثر بود فریبنده بودن حواس بود-سوالاتی از این قبیل:
رنگین کمان در کجاست؟ آیا اشیا همان هستند که در آفتاب به نظر می رسند،یا آنکه در ماهتاب؟یا به عبارت جدیدتر،آیا اشیا واقعا همان هستند که به چشم برهنه می آیند یا انکه از پشت ��یکروسکوپ دیده می شوند؟
چیزی نگذشت که مسئله بزرگتری هم به این معماها افزوده شد.وقتی که یونانیان درباره خدایان المپ به شک افتادند،برخی از آنها جانشین عقاید دیرین را در فلسفه جستجو کردند.از ترکیب این دو انگیزه،حرکت دو جانبه ای در فلسفه آغاز شد:
از یک طرف پنداشته شد که بسیاری از آنچه در زندگی روزمره به نام دانش شناخته می شود دانش واقعی نیست؛و از طرف دیگر بیشتر فلاسفه گفتند که یک حقیقت فلسفی عمیق تر هست که از عقاید ما درباره اینکه جهان چه باید باشد ثابت تر هست.کمابیش در سراسر فلسفه،شک انگیزه بوده است و یقین هدف.شک درباره حواس،شک درباره علم،شک درباره الهیات همیشه وجود داشته هست.نزد برخی از فلاسفه یک شکل شک بارزتر بوده است و نزد برخی شکل دیگر.همچنین فلاسفه در پاسخهایی که در برابر این شکلها ارائه کرده اند،و حتا در اینکه اصولن پاسخی ممکن باشد،اختلاف فراوان داشته اند.
همه این انگیزه های دیرینه دست به هم دادند و مرا به جانب فلسفه راندند؛اما دو انگیزه خصوصن در من موثر افتادند.انگیزه ای که زودتر اثر کرد و دیرتر پایید عبارت بود از آرزوی یافتن دانشی که بتوان آن را یقینا راست دانست.انگیزه دیگر یافتن جوابی بود برای تمایلات دینی.
گمان می کنم نخستین چیزی که مرا به فلسفه راهبری کرد(هرچند در آن هنگام کلمه"فلسفه" برای من ناشناس بود) در یازده سالگی برایم پیش آمد.کودکی من بیشتر در تنهایی گذشت،چون که یگانه برادرم هفت سال از من بزرگتر بود.بی شک به سبب تنهایی ممتد،من قدری در خود فرورفتم و زمان زیادی برای اندیشیدن داشتم،بی آنکه معلومات زیادی داشته باشم تا اندیشه ام را با آن ورزش دهم.هرچند هنوز از این نکته آگاه نبودم،از استدلال لذت می بردم-که از مشخصات ذهن ریاضی است.پس از آنکه بزرگ شدم اشخاص دیگری را هم شناختم که از این حیث مانند من بودند.یکی از دوستان جی.اچ.هاردی که استاد ریاضیات محض بود،این لذت را خیلی دوست می داشت.یک بار به من می گفت که اگر بتواند دلیلی پیدا کند که من پنج دقیقه دیگر خواهم مرد،البته از مرگ من متاسف خواهد شد،اما لذت پیدا کردن دلیل بر تاسفش غلبه میکند.من در این خصوص کاملا با او همدل بودم و هیچ نرنجیدم.پیش از انکه به تحصیل هندسه بپردازم شخصی به من گفته بود که هندسه چیزها را ثابت می کند،و وقتی برادرم به من گفت حاضر هست که هندسه به من بیاموزد بسیار سبب خوشحالی من شد.
هندسه در ان زمان هنوز هندسه اقلیدس بود.برادرم ابتدا با تعاریف شروع کرد.من تعاریف را راحت پذیرفتم.اما بعد نوبت به اصول رسید.برادرم گفت:"اینها قابل اثبات نیستند اما باید آنها را فرض گرفت تا باقی قضایا را بتوان اثبات کرد."
با شنیدن این کلمات امیدهای من فرو ریختند.من پیش خودم فکر کرده بودم که چقدر عالی هست که آدم چیزی را پیدا کند که بتوان آن را ثابت کرد و معلوم شد که این کار را تنها به کمک فرضیاتی می توان کرد که خودشان دلیلی ندارند.به من برخورد.به برادرم نگاه کردم و گفتم:"اگگر این چیزها قابل اثبات نیستند،پس من چرا باید قبولشان کنم؟"
برادرم گفت:"خوب،اگر این ها را قبول نکنب نمیتوانیم ادامه بدهیم."
من با خود اندیشیدم که بد نیست باقی داستان را نیز بشنوم.
و بنابراین اصول را عجالتن قبول کردم.اما در زمینه ای که در آن انتظار روشنی بی چون و چرا داشتم،شک و سرگشتگی در دلم برجا ماند.
اما با وجود این شکها که بیشتر اوقات فراموششان می کردم و غالبن با خود می گفتم حتمن جوابی دارند که هنوز پیدا نشده هست،از ریاضیات لذت فراوانی بردم.در حقیقت از این رشته بسیار بیشتر از هر رشته دیگری لذت بردم.خوشم می امد که درباره انطباق ریاضیات با عالم مادی فکر کنم و امیدوار بودم که یک روز ریاضیات رفتار انسان نیز به دقت ریاضیات علم مکانیک به وجود بیاید.این امید را از ان جهات داشتم که از استدلال خوشم می آمد و بیشتر وقتها این انگیزه بر تمایل به اختیار یا اراده آزاد-که آن را هم در دل می پروراندم-غلبه می کرد.با این همه هرگز نتوانستن بر شکهای اساسی خود درباره اعتبار ریاضیات چیره شوم.
زمانی که شروع به آموختن ریاضیات عالی کردم،اشکالات تازه ای به من حمله ور شدند.استادان من برهانهایی به من ارائه می کردند که به نظر من غلط می امد و بعدها دانستم که غلط بودن این برهان پیش از آن معلوم شده هست.
من در ان هنگام یا تا مدتی پس از رفتن به دانگاه کمبریج،نمیدانستم که ریاضیدانهای آلمانی برهانهای بهتری پیدا کرده اند.بدین جهت برای پذیرفتن فلسفه کانت احساس آمادگی کردم.این فلسفه،دیدگاه پناور تازه ای را نشان می داد که از آنجا اشکالاتی که مرا ناراحت کرده ناچیز و بی اهمیت به نظر می رسید.بعدها به این نتیجه رسیدم که اینها همه غلط هست،اما این نتیجه تنها زمانی به دست امد که در منجلاب مابعدالطبیعه خوب غوطه خوردم.در انتقال به فلسفه یک چیز مرا یاری داد،و ان نوعی دلزدگی از ریاضیات بود که بر اثر زیاد باریک شدن در مسائل ریاضی و زیاد جذب شدن در آن نوع مهارتی که برای قبول شدن در امتحانات لازم هست به من دست داده بود.کوشش برای به دست آوردن فوت و فن امتحانات باعث شده بود که ریاضیات به صورت نوعی بازی ماهرانه و تمهید زیرکانه و خلاصه چیزی شبیه به جدول کلمات متقاطع در نظرم جلوه کند.در پایان سه سال اول دانشگاه کمبریج،زمانی که آخرین امتحان ریاضی را گذراندم.،سوگند خوردم که دیگر به ریاضیات نگاه نکنم و همه کتابهای ریاضی را فروختم.در این حال،مطالعه فلسفه مانند دیدن یک افق تازه پس از یر برآوردن از یک دره برایم لذت بخش بود.
من یقین را تنها رد ریاضیات جستجو کرده بودم.مانند دکارت(که آثارش هنوز برایم ناشناس بود) می اندیشیدم که وجود خود من برای من غیرقابل تردید هست و مانند دکارت ممکن دیدم که تصور کتم جهان بیرون رویایی بیش نیست.اما اگر هم چنین باشد،رویایی هست که واقعن دیده می شود و این نکته که من این رویا را می بینم برایم یقین قطعی بود.این طرز فکر ابتدا زمانی که شانزده سال داشتم برایم پیش آمد،و بعدها که شنیدم دکارت آن را اساس فلسفه خود قرار داده هست،بسیار خوشحال شدم.
در کمبریج علاقه من به فلسفه انگیزه دیگری هم پیدا کرد.شکاکیتی که باعث شده بود حتا در ریاضیات هم شک کنم و در احکام اساسی دین نیز مرا به شک بسیار انداخته بود،اما من مشتاق بودم راهی پیدا کنم که لااقل چیزی که بشود نام ان را اعتقاد دینی گذاشت برای خود نگاه دارم.از سن پانزده تا هجده سالگی مقدار زیادی زمان و فکر صرف اعتقاد دینی کردم.احکام اساسی دین را یک به یک مطالعه کردم و از ته دل اممیدوار بودم که دلیلی برای پذیرش آنها پیدا کنم.افکارم را در دفتری یادداشت می کردم و این دفتر را هنوز هم دارم.این افکار البته خام و متناسب با سنین حوانی بودند،اما در ان زمان در برابر شکاکیتی که به من القا می کردند جوابی نداشتم.در کمبریج با دستگاههای کامل فکری آشنا شدم که پیشتر از انها خبر نداشتم و تا چندی افکاری را که در تنهایی نزد خودم پرورانده بودن را رها کردم.
در کمبریج با فلسفه هگل آشنا شدم،در طی نوزده جلد مدعی بود که چیزی را اثبات کرده هست که به عنوان روایت مرتب و مکملی از اعتقادات قدیم می توان به کار بست.هگل جهان را به صورت یک وحدت فشرده در نظر می گرفت.جهان او مانند ژله بود.از این حیث که به هرکجای آن دست می زدی تمام آن به لرزه در می آمد،اما از این حیث که نمی شد آن را تقسیم کرد به ژله شباهتی نداشت.به نظر هگل متشکل بودن ظاهری جهان و اجزا وهم بود.یگانه واقعیت،مطلق بود و این نامی بود که هگل روی خدا گذاشته بود.من تا چندی در این فلسفه تسلای خاطری پیدا کردم.فلسفه هگل به صورتی که معتقدانش به من ارائه می کردند،بخصوصن به قول مک تاگارت که در ان زمان از دوستان صمیمی من بود،هم زیبا به نظر می سرید و هم قابل اثبات.مک تاگارت فیلسوفی بود شش سال از من بزرگتر و در تمام عمرش از پیروان با حرارت هگل بود.مک تاگارت در معاصران خود تاثیر زیادی کرد و من هم تا چندی تحت تاثیر او بودم.لذت خاصی داشت که آدم به خودش بقبولاند که زمان و مکان واقعی نیستند و ماده وهم هست و جهان در واقع از چیزی جز ذهن ساخته نشده هست.
اما در یک لحظه بی پروایی،من از شاگردان به استاد پرداختم و در آثار خود هگل محشری از اغتشتش دیدم و فلسفه اش به نظرم چیزی بیش از بازی با کلمات نیامد.این بود که فلسفه هگل را رها کردم.
چندی هم رضای خاطر را در نظریه ای یافتم که با اصلاحاتی از افلاطون گرفته بودم.بنابر عقیده افلاطون،که من آن را به شکل رقیق شده پذیرفته بودم،یک جهان تغییرناپذیر از مثل وجود دارد که جهان محسوس نسخه ناقصی از ان هست.بر طبق این عقیده ریاضیات با جهان مثل سروکار دارد و در نتیجه دارای دقت و کمالی است که در جهان روزمره ما دیده نمی شود.این نوع عرفان ریاضی،که افلاطون از فیثاغورث گرفته بود،به دل من نشست.
اما سرانجام خود را ناچار دیدم که این عقیده را نیز رها کنم و پس از ان در هیچ عقیده فلسفی که برایم قابل قبول باشد،برای تمایلات دینی خود پاسخی نیافتم.
انگیزه هایی که مردمان را به فلسفه کشانده گوناگون بوده هست.با حرمت ترین انگیزه ها میل به شناختن جهان بوده هست.در زمان قدیم که فلسفه و علم از یکدیگر متمایز نبودند،این انگیزه غالب بود.انگیزه دیگری که در قدیم بسیار موثر بود فریبنده بودن حواس بود-سوالاتی از این قبیل:
رنگین کمان در کجاست؟ آیا اشیا همان هستند که در آفتاب به نظر می رسند،یا آنکه در ماهتاب؟یا به عبارت جدیدتر،آیا اشیا واقعا همان هستند که به چشم برهنه می آیند یا انکه از پشت ��یکروسکوپ دیده می شوند؟
چیزی نگذشت که مسئله بزرگتری هم به این معماها افزوده شد.وقتی که یونانیان درباره خدایان المپ به شک افتادند،برخی از آنها جانشین عقاید دیرین را در فلسفه جستجو کردند.از ترکیب این دو انگیزه،حرکت دو جانبه ای در فلسفه آغاز شد:
از یک طرف پنداشته شد که بسیاری از آنچه در زندگی روزمره به نام دانش شناخته می شود دانش واقعی نیست؛و از طرف دیگر بیشتر فلاسفه گفتند که یک حقیقت فلسفی عمیق تر هست که از عقاید ما درباره اینکه جهان چه باید باشد ثابت تر هست.کمابیش در سراسر فلسفه،شک انگیزه بوده است و یقین هدف.شک درباره حواس،شک درباره علم،شک درباره الهیات همیشه وجود داشته هست.نزد برخی از فلاسفه یک شکل شک بارزتر بوده است و نزد برخی شکل دیگر.همچنین فلاسفه در پاسخهایی که در برابر این شکلها ارائه کرده اند،و حتا در اینکه اصولن پاسخی ممکن باشد،اختلاف فراوان داشته اند.
همه این انگیزه های دیرینه دست به هم دادند و مرا به جانب فلسفه راندند؛اما دو انگیزه خصوصن در من موثر افتادند.انگیزه ای که زودتر اثر کرد و دیرتر پایید عبارت بود از آرزوی یافتن دانشی که بتوان آن را یقینا راست دانست.انگیزه دیگر یافتن جوابی بود برای تمایلات دینی.
گمان می کنم نخستین چیزی که مرا به فلسفه راهبری کرد(هرچند در آن هنگام کلمه"فلسفه" برای من ناشناس بود) در یازده سالگی برایم پیش آمد.کودکی من بیشتر در تنهایی گذشت،چون که یگانه برادرم هفت سال از من بزرگتر بود.بی شک به سبب تنهایی ممتد،من قدری در خود فرورفتم و زمان زیادی برای اندیشیدن داشتم،بی آنکه معلومات زیادی داشته باشم تا اندیشه ام را با آن ورزش دهم.هرچند هنوز از این نکته آگاه نبودم،از استدلال لذت می بردم-که از مشخصات ذهن ریاضی است.پس از آنکه بزرگ شدم اشخاص دیگری را هم شناختم که از این حیث مانند من بودند.یکی از دوستان جی.اچ.هاردی که استاد ریاضیات محض بود،این لذت را خیلی دوست می داشت.یک بار به من می گفت که اگر بتواند دلیلی پیدا کند که من پنج دقیقه دیگر خواهم مرد،البته از مرگ من متاسف خواهد شد،اما لذت پیدا کردن دلیل بر تاسفش غلبه میکند.من در این خصوص کاملا با او همدل بودم و هیچ نرنجیدم.پیش از انکه به تحصیل هندسه بپردازم شخصی به من گفته بود که هندسه چیزها را ثابت می کند،و وقتی برادرم به من گفت حاضر هست که هندسه به من بیاموزد بسیار سبب خوشحالی من شد.
هندسه در ان زمان هنوز هندسه اقلیدس بود.برادرم ابتدا با تعاریف شروع کرد.من تعاریف را راحت پذیرفتم.اما بعد نوبت به اصول رسید.برادرم گفت:"اینها قابل اثبات نیستند اما باید آنها را فرض گرفت تا باقی قضایا را بتوان اثبات کرد."
با شنیدن این کلمات امیدهای من فرو ریختند.من پیش خودم فکر کرده بودم که چقدر عالی هست که آدم چیزی را پیدا کند که بتوان آن را ثابت کرد و معلوم شد که این کار را تنها به کمک فرضیاتی می توان کرد که خودشان دلیلی ندارند.به من برخورد.به برادرم نگاه کردم و گفتم:"اگگر این چیزها قابل اثبات نیستند،پس من چرا باید قبولشان کنم؟"
برادرم گفت:"خوب،اگر این ها را قبول نکنب نمیتوانیم ادامه بدهیم."
من با خود اندیشیدم که بد نیست باقی داستان را نیز بشنوم.
و بنابراین اصول را عجالتن قبول کردم.اما در زمینه ای که در آن انتظار روشنی بی چون و چرا داشتم،شک و سرگشتگی در دلم برجا ماند.
اما با وجود این شکها که بیشتر اوقات فراموششان می کردم و غالبن با خود می گفتم حتمن جوابی دارند که هنوز پیدا نشده هست،از ریاضیات لذت فراوانی بردم.در حقیقت از این رشته بسیار بیشتر از هر رشته دیگری لذت بردم.خوشم می امد که درباره انطباق ریاضیات با عالم مادی فکر کنم و امیدوار بودم که یک روز ریاضیات رفتار انسان نیز به دقت ریاضیات علم مکانیک به وجود بیاید.این امید را از ان جهات داشتم که از استدلال خوشم می آمد و بیشتر وقتها این انگیزه بر تمایل به اختیار یا اراده آزاد-که آن را هم در دل می پروراندم-غلبه می کرد.با این همه هرگز نتوانستن بر شکهای اساسی خود درباره اعتبار ریاضیات چیره شوم.
زمانی که شروع به آموختن ریاضیات عالی کردم،اشکالات تازه ای به من حمله ور شدند.استادان من برهانهایی به من ارائه می کردند که به نظر من غلط می امد و بعدها دانستم که غلط بودن این برهان پیش از آن معلوم شده هست.
من در ان هنگام یا تا مدتی پس از رفتن به دانگاه کمبریج،نمیدانستم که ریاضیدانهای آلمانی برهانهای بهتری پیدا کرده اند.بدین جهت برای پذیرفتن فلسفه کانت احساس آمادگی کردم.این فلسفه،دیدگاه پناور تازه ای را نشان می داد که از آنجا اشکالاتی که مرا ناراحت کرده ناچیز و بی اهمیت به نظر می رسید.بعدها به این نتیجه رسیدم که اینها همه غلط هست،اما این نتیجه تنها زمانی به دست امد که در منجلاب مابعدالطبیعه خوب غوطه خوردم.در انتقال به فلسفه یک چیز مرا یاری داد،و ان نوعی دلزدگی از ریاضیات بود که بر اثر زیاد باریک شدن در مسائل ریاضی و زیاد جذب شدن در آن نوع مهارتی که برای قبول شدن در امتحانات لازم هست به من دست داده بود.کوشش برای به دست آوردن فوت و فن امتحانات باعث شده بود که ریاضیات به صورت نوعی بازی ماهرانه و تمهید زیرکانه و خلاصه چیزی شبیه به جدول کلمات متقاطع در نظرم جلوه کند.در پایان سه سال اول دانشگاه کمبریج،زمانی که آخرین امتحان ریاضی را گذراندم.،سوگند خوردم که دیگر به ریاضیات نگاه نکنم و همه کتابهای ریاضی را فروختم.در این حال،مطالعه فلسفه مانند دیدن یک افق تازه پس از یر برآوردن از یک دره برایم لذت بخش بود.
من یقین را تنها رد ریاضیات جستجو کرده بودم.مانند دکارت(که آثارش هنوز برایم ناشناس بود) می اندیشیدم که وجود خود من برای من غیرقابل تردید هست و مانند دکارت ممکن دیدم که تصور کتم جهان بیرون رویایی بیش نیست.اما اگر هم چنین باشد،رویایی هست که واقعن دیده می شود و این نکته که من این رویا را می بینم برایم یقین قطعی بود.این طرز فکر ابتدا زمانی که شانزده سال داشتم برایم پیش آمد،و بعدها که شنیدم دکارت آن را اساس فلسفه خود قرار داده هست،بسیار خوشحال شدم.
در کمبریج علاقه من به فلسفه انگیزه دیگری هم پیدا کرد.شکاکیتی که باعث شده بود حتا در ریاضیات هم شک کنم و در احکام اساسی دین نیز مرا به شک بسیار انداخته بود،اما من مشتاق بودم راهی پیدا کنم که لااقل چیزی که بشود نام ان را اعتقاد دینی گذاشت برای خود نگاه دارم.از سن پانزده تا هجده سالگی مقدار زیادی زمان و فکر صرف اعتقاد دینی کردم.احکام اساسی دین را یک به یک مطالعه کردم و از ته دل اممیدوار بودم که دلیلی برای پذیرش آنها پیدا کنم.افکارم را در دفتری یادداشت می کردم و این دفتر را هنوز هم دارم.این افکار البته خام و متناسب با سنین حوانی بودند،اما در ان زمان در برابر شکاکیتی که به من القا می کردند جوابی نداشتم.در کمبریج با دستگاههای کامل فکری آشنا شدم که پیشتر از انها خبر نداشتم و تا چندی افکاری را که در تنهایی نزد خودم پرورانده بودن را رها کردم.
در کمبریج با فلسفه هگل آشنا شدم،در طی نوزده جلد مدعی بود که چیزی را اثبات کرده هست که به عنوان روایت مرتب و مکملی از اعتقادات قدیم می توان به کار بست.هگل جهان را به صورت یک وحدت فشرده در نظر می گرفت.جهان او مانند ژله بود.از این حیث که به هرکجای آن دست می زدی تمام آن به لرزه در می آمد،اما از این حیث که نمی شد آن را تقسیم کرد به ژله شباهتی نداشت.به نظر هگل متشکل بودن ظاهری جهان و اجزا وهم بود.یگانه واقعیت،مطلق بود و این نامی بود که هگل روی خدا گذاشته بود.من تا چندی در این فلسفه تسلای خاطری پیدا کردم.فلسفه هگل به صورتی که معتقدانش به من ارائه می کردند،بخصوصن به قول مک تاگارت که در ان زمان از دوستان صمیمی من بود،هم زیبا به نظر می سرید و هم قابل اثبات.مک تاگارت فیلسوفی بود شش سال از من بزرگتر و در تمام عمرش از پیروان با حرارت هگل بود.مک تاگارت در معاصران خود تاثیر زیادی کرد و من هم تا چندی تحت تاثیر او بودم.لذت خاصی داشت که آدم به خودش بقبولاند که زمان و مکان واقعی نیستند و ماده وهم هست و جهان در واقع از چیزی جز ذهن ساخته نشده هست.
اما در یک لحظه بی پروایی،من از شاگردان به استاد پرداختم و در آثار خود هگل محشری از اغتشتش دیدم و فلسفه اش به نظرم چیزی بیش از بازی با کلمات نیامد.این بود که فلسفه هگل را رها کردم.
چندی هم رضای خاطر را در نظریه ای یافتم که با اصلاحاتی از افلاطون گرفته بودم.بنابر عقیده افلاطون،که من آن را به شکل رقیق شده پذیرفته بودم،یک جهان تغییرناپذیر از مثل وجود دارد که جهان محسوس نسخه ناقصی از ان هست.بر طبق این عقیده ریاضیات با جهان مثل سروکار دارد و در نتیجه دارای دقت و کمالی است که در جهان روزمره ما دیده نمی شود.این نوع عرفان ریاضی،که افلاطون از فیثاغورث گرفته بود،به دل من نشست.
اما سرانجام خود را ناچار دیدم که این عقیده را نیز رها کنم و پس از ان در هیچ عقیده فلسفی که برایم قابل قبول باشد،برای تمایلات دینی خود پاسخی نیافتم.
May 28, 2020
Bertie could dazzle us with his education but prefers to write from the heart. Rather than eviscerate Mysticism as superstitious nonsense, he places a value on mystical experiences as being real catalysts which often inspire subsequent scientifically rigorous work.
"But the greatest of men who have been philosophers have felt the need both of science and mysticism: the attempt to harmonise the two was what made their life, and what always must, for all its arduous uncertainty, make philosophy, to some minds, a greater thing than either science or religion."
Russell goes on to trace instances of these twin forces of philosophy through the ages. He finds several common themes which characterize mysticism, including a feeling of Unity, documented in the writings of Parmenides, and a feeling that Time is an illusion. Is evil real or is everything relative? These are all the cool theories, questions and ideas that draw me to philosophy (the arcane and involved logic of Aristotle and Russell himself, don't excite me like these do, quite possibly because I find them incredibly difficult).
Bertrand Russell is surprisingly direct and sometimes very funny. He almost slipped this one past me,
"even in the most civilised societies men are not put to death for mathematical incompetence."
His method is what appeals to me most and he articulates it beautifully. He has a deep reverence for the human pursuit of scientific philosophy.
"the ideals to which we do and must adhere are not realized in the realm of matter. Let us preserve our respect for truth, for beauty, for the ideal of perfection which life does not permit us to attain, though none of these things meet with the approval of the unconscious universe. If Power is bad, as it seems to be, let us reject it from our hearts. In this lies Man's true freedom: in determination to worship only the God created by our own love of the good, to respect only the heaven which inspires the insight of our best moments."
"But the greatest of men who have been philosophers have felt the need both of science and mysticism: the attempt to harmonise the two was what made their life, and what always must, for all its arduous uncertainty, make philosophy, to some minds, a greater thing than either science or religion."
Russell goes on to trace instances of these twin forces of philosophy through the ages. He finds several common themes which characterize mysticism, including a feeling of Unity, documented in the writings of Parmenides, and a feeling that Time is an illusion. Is evil real or is everything relative? These are all the cool theories, questions and ideas that draw me to philosophy (the arcane and involved logic of Aristotle and Russell himself, don't excite me like these do, quite possibly because I find them incredibly difficult).
Bertrand Russell is surprisingly direct and sometimes very funny. He almost slipped this one past me,
"even in the most civilised societies men are not put to death for mathematical incompetence."
His method is what appeals to me most and he articulates it beautifully. He has a deep reverence for the human pursuit of scientific philosophy.
"the ideals to which we do and must adhere are not realized in the realm of matter. Let us preserve our respect for truth, for beauty, for the ideal of perfection which life does not permit us to attain, though none of these things meet with the approval of the unconscious universe. If Power is bad, as it seems to be, let us reject it from our hearts. In this lies Man's true freedom: in determination to worship only the God created by our own love of the good, to respect only the heaven which inspires the insight of our best moments."
October 1, 2015
Although these essays contain many flaws, they are packed with insights. Accordingly, I highly recommend them.
The first essay, "Mysticism and Logic," provides a good overview of the features common to mystical experiences and the tenets common to mystical philosophies. His treatment of the reason/intuition dichotomy is flawed, however, because, reason ultimately gains its legitimacy from intuition. In the section devoted to "Good and Evil," Russell gives no arguments that ethical predicates are not real and irreducible. Additionally, as is the case with many of the other essays, Russell too frequently states that arguments are given in other works, and so will not be repeated here. It would be nice if he could at least give them in outline!
In his third essay, "A Free Man's Worship," Russell claims that science provides us with a counsel of despair. But this is, after all, merely a matter of interpretation. One could find the results of science either life-enhancing or disheartening. The prose of this piece is rather turgid, to say the least.
In "The Study of Mathematics," Russell provides no arguments for his logicist claims (with which I disagree, preferring intuitionism.) Also, his imputation of beauty to the mathematical realm seems to be an anthropomorphism which he has elsewhere attacked.
"The Ultimate Constituents of Matter" is valuable if only because of Russell's critique of direct realism at the beginning of the essay. However, I do not believe that sense-data exist (and I think late Russell recanted his belief in them). Moreover, to claim that the objects of are thought are sense-data is a modified form of direct realism which is also open to criticism. A similar criticism can be directed at the following essay, "The Relation of Sense Data to Physics."
Russell's essay "On the Notion of Cause" is disappointing because he does not consider counter-factual definitions of cause, which, I believe, are the most commonly accepted today. However, his analysis of free will vs. determinism at the end of the essay is very illuminating, and makes the entire essay worth reading.
Finally, Russell's critique of the idea that the constituents of judgments are themselves ideas in the last essay "Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description" is worth reading. It seems as a corollary that words cannot refer to ideas; in this respect Russell anticipates Wittgenstein's Private Language Argument.
Although "Mysticism and Logic" contains many shortcomings, Russell's brilliant flashes of insight make it well worth the read.
The first essay, "Mysticism and Logic," provides a good overview of the features common to mystical experiences and the tenets common to mystical philosophies. His treatment of the reason/intuition dichotomy is flawed, however, because, reason ultimately gains its legitimacy from intuition. In the section devoted to "Good and Evil," Russell gives no arguments that ethical predicates are not real and irreducible. Additionally, as is the case with many of the other essays, Russell too frequently states that arguments are given in other works, and so will not be repeated here. It would be nice if he could at least give them in outline!
In his third essay, "A Free Man's Worship," Russell claims that science provides us with a counsel of despair. But this is, after all, merely a matter of interpretation. One could find the results of science either life-enhancing or disheartening. The prose of this piece is rather turgid, to say the least.
In "The Study of Mathematics," Russell provides no arguments for his logicist claims (with which I disagree, preferring intuitionism.) Also, his imputation of beauty to the mathematical realm seems to be an anthropomorphism which he has elsewhere attacked.
"The Ultimate Constituents of Matter" is valuable if only because of Russell's critique of direct realism at the beginning of the essay. However, I do not believe that sense-data exist (and I think late Russell recanted his belief in them). Moreover, to claim that the objects of are thought are sense-data is a modified form of direct realism which is also open to criticism. A similar criticism can be directed at the following essay, "The Relation of Sense Data to Physics."
Russell's essay "On the Notion of Cause" is disappointing because he does not consider counter-factual definitions of cause, which, I believe, are the most commonly accepted today. However, his analysis of free will vs. determinism at the end of the essay is very illuminating, and makes the entire essay worth reading.
Finally, Russell's critique of the idea that the constituents of judgments are themselves ideas in the last essay "Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description" is worth reading. It seems as a corollary that words cannot refer to ideas; in this respect Russell anticipates Wittgenstein's Private Language Argument.
Although "Mysticism and Logic" contains many shortcomings, Russell's brilliant flashes of insight make it well worth the read.
January 21, 2010
Even though these essays were written nearly 100 years ago, Russell comes across clearly while remaining eloquent and succinct. The subject matter is rather abstract, dealing mostly with mysticism, religion, and logic. The last few essays are aimed at a rather small niche audience of mathematicians, physicists, and logicians, but were still comprehensible although not quite as interesting as the opening pieces.
June 26, 2015
Preface
--Mysticism and Logic
--The Place of Science in a Liberal Education
--A Free Man's Worship
--The Study of Mathematics
--Mathematics and the Metaphysicians
--On Scientific Method in Philosophy
--The Ultimate Constituents of Matter
--The Relation of Sense-data to Physics
--On the Notion of Cause
--Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description
Index
--Mysticism and Logic
--The Place of Science in a Liberal Education
--A Free Man's Worship
--The Study of Mathematics
--Mathematics and the Metaphysicians
--On Scientific Method in Philosophy
--The Ultimate Constituents of Matter
--The Relation of Sense-data to Physics
--On the Notion of Cause
--Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description
Index
July 6, 2018
Bertrand Russell skvělý, bohužel archaizující překlad mě rozčiloval a navíc mám pocit, že v těch pasážích o logice překladatel Russellovy myšlenky dezinterpretuje. Asi jsem měl rovnou koupit originál na Amazonu, teď to musím stejně udělat, protože mě zajímá, jestli jsem Russella nepochopil já nebo překladatel . :(
August 24, 2012
من نمی توانم مدعی بشوم که میدانم چگونه باید نوشت ، یااینکه یک منتقد خوب جه پندی باید به من بدهد که نوشتنم پیشرفت کند .... حد اعلای کاری که از دستم برمی آید این است چیزهای در بارۀ تلاشهای خودم نقل کنم. عرفان و منطق اثر: برتراند راسل
December 29, 2017
There is no objective meaning in life. We should be resigned to this, but strive nonetheless to actively create beauty, truth, and perfection. In this way, we achieve some freedom from the eternal forces that will destroy us.
May 19, 2012
الترجمة سيئة جداااااااااااااااااا
January 22, 2024
Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays by Bertrand Russell would not be an easy read for people unfamiliar with either logic or mathematics. In the book, the author grapples with philosophical causality and consequence, and, for many a general reader, the author’s translation of apparently simple ideas into the language of algebra might appear a complication for complication’s sake. This would, however, be a mistake. There are occasions when a generalization clarifies, when the particular complicates by association.
One memorable aspect of the book is the section in which Russell deals with reality, as sensed by an observer. At some length he describes the process by which objects are sensed and maintains that from a perspective of the object perceived, no two views of the universe, no two views of reality can ever be the same. He even suggests that as a result the sensory input might even have different existences for different observers, different existences, even, across time. My viewpoint is not yours, even when we are looking at the same object. But the reality is that we can both sometimes agree what it is that we are seeing. Russell, of course, does not limit the argument to sight. This descriptive agreement happens despite the fact that what we see independently differs, despite the fact that the individual memory records are also bound to differ.
That we can, as individual observers with differing viewpoints, agree on what we see points, I believe, to a flaw in Russell’s argument. Without resorting to platonic essences, we all possess, whether pre-programmed or learned, a vast store of examples of type, which can be recalled and tested against sensory inputs. The fact that we as individuals see tables of different shapes, even of different colours depending merely on the fall of light, does not stand in the way of both of us matching the experience past and present with the idea of table. Since we can also agree on the classification, there are grounds to claim that the table exists in the universe of our sensory input, despite the fact that our memories and sensations of it differ. Were we as observers to exchange places, we would probably both reach the same conclusion. The table therefore has existence, though our perceptions of it have changed.
This all becomes problematic, of course, when the observed phenomenon is not already part of our perception and thus absent from our classification system. Then we must, as a race of rational animals, resort to third-party, perhaps mechanical perceptions and measurements of phenomena. In that case, following repeated extra-human observations, human beings can attempt to establish shared classification. The conclusions we draw from these perceptions are what we generally refer to as science.
This book was written in 1910, but today it still challenges, despite the completely changed scientific landscape. It does, however, still use language to analyse language, so if it finds holes that is only to be expected. Russell alludes to this limitation thus in criticism of the philosophy of Bergson: “The rest of Bergen’s philosophy consists in reporting, through the imperfect medium of words, the knowledge gained by intuition, and the consequence complete condemnation of all the pretended knowledge derive from science and common sense.�
The fact that the book dates from the first decade of the twentieth century means that we have to accept this language: “the theoretical understanding of the world, which is the aim of philosophy, is not a matter of great practical importance to animals, or savages, or even to most civilized men.� The sentiment is that ivory towers may be sufficiently separate from reality as to be irrelevant, which translates to today’s thinking.
The pursuit of philosophy, however, must be rooted in what is generally accepted as real: “…it is only so that we can account for the complacency, with which philosophers have accepted the inconsistency of their doctrines with all the common and scientific facts, which seem best established, and most worthy of belief.�
The particularism of personal experience is also recognized: “…all our thinking, consists of convenient, fictions, imaginary congealing of the stream: reality flows on, in spite of all our fictions, although it can be lived, it cannot be conceived in thought.�
Russell, it has to be remembered, was on some issues a radical. In explaining that causality, as generally perceived, might be teleological and therefore invalid, he manages to throw in a firecracker: “…the law of causality, I believe, like much that passes must among philosophers, is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously, supposed to do no harm.�
And, in the age of social media, one of the book’s parting comments is apposite: “…this is merely to say that we cannot make a judgment or a supposition without knowing what it is that we are making our judgment or supposition about.�
Bertrand Russell’s Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays is eventually still a stimulating and enlightening read.
One memorable aspect of the book is the section in which Russell deals with reality, as sensed by an observer. At some length he describes the process by which objects are sensed and maintains that from a perspective of the object perceived, no two views of the universe, no two views of reality can ever be the same. He even suggests that as a result the sensory input might even have different existences for different observers, different existences, even, across time. My viewpoint is not yours, even when we are looking at the same object. But the reality is that we can both sometimes agree what it is that we are seeing. Russell, of course, does not limit the argument to sight. This descriptive agreement happens despite the fact that what we see independently differs, despite the fact that the individual memory records are also bound to differ.
That we can, as individual observers with differing viewpoints, agree on what we see points, I believe, to a flaw in Russell’s argument. Without resorting to platonic essences, we all possess, whether pre-programmed or learned, a vast store of examples of type, which can be recalled and tested against sensory inputs. The fact that we as individuals see tables of different shapes, even of different colours depending merely on the fall of light, does not stand in the way of both of us matching the experience past and present with the idea of table. Since we can also agree on the classification, there are grounds to claim that the table exists in the universe of our sensory input, despite the fact that our memories and sensations of it differ. Were we as observers to exchange places, we would probably both reach the same conclusion. The table therefore has existence, though our perceptions of it have changed.
This all becomes problematic, of course, when the observed phenomenon is not already part of our perception and thus absent from our classification system. Then we must, as a race of rational animals, resort to third-party, perhaps mechanical perceptions and measurements of phenomena. In that case, following repeated extra-human observations, human beings can attempt to establish shared classification. The conclusions we draw from these perceptions are what we generally refer to as science.
This book was written in 1910, but today it still challenges, despite the completely changed scientific landscape. It does, however, still use language to analyse language, so if it finds holes that is only to be expected. Russell alludes to this limitation thus in criticism of the philosophy of Bergson: “The rest of Bergen’s philosophy consists in reporting, through the imperfect medium of words, the knowledge gained by intuition, and the consequence complete condemnation of all the pretended knowledge derive from science and common sense.�
The fact that the book dates from the first decade of the twentieth century means that we have to accept this language: “the theoretical understanding of the world, which is the aim of philosophy, is not a matter of great practical importance to animals, or savages, or even to most civilized men.� The sentiment is that ivory towers may be sufficiently separate from reality as to be irrelevant, which translates to today’s thinking.
The pursuit of philosophy, however, must be rooted in what is generally accepted as real: “…it is only so that we can account for the complacency, with which philosophers have accepted the inconsistency of their doctrines with all the common and scientific facts, which seem best established, and most worthy of belief.�
The particularism of personal experience is also recognized: “…all our thinking, consists of convenient, fictions, imaginary congealing of the stream: reality flows on, in spite of all our fictions, although it can be lived, it cannot be conceived in thought.�
Russell, it has to be remembered, was on some issues a radical. In explaining that causality, as generally perceived, might be teleological and therefore invalid, he manages to throw in a firecracker: “…the law of causality, I believe, like much that passes must among philosophers, is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously, supposed to do no harm.�
And, in the age of social media, one of the book’s parting comments is apposite: “…this is merely to say that we cannot make a judgment or a supposition without knowing what it is that we are making our judgment or supposition about.�
Bertrand Russell’s Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays is eventually still a stimulating and enlightening read.
Read
February 8, 2020This philosophy dialog made me think... Is science just another religion? It seems to work very well with objective reality... whatever that is..lol
November 27, 2016
Without going into much detail into Russel’s life, in the years prior to when he wrote his essay, A Free Man’s Worship, he had gone through some sort of spiritual conversion if one can call it as such. What was once to him a far off topic to contemplate had become a central motive to be good and feel empathy towards his kind. It was human suffering that had made him strive and work for goodness. It was this feeling of rebellion to the harsh reality which perhaps drew him to use literature and poetry to channel his philosophical and moral ideals. In my opinion, his essay succeeds in pointing the reader to the realization he wants us to be aware of.
The Creation of the world, to be fair, is an account of vast detail and inquiries. But we can't help but wonder if there is some purpose to this life, is there a Creator? Could it be that the Creator enjoys the chaotic universe? Whatever the motives of that person or thing, the world is a harsh place. Such is the picture also given to us by Mephistopheles in his "Creation of the Universe". That we can be swept into oblivion without foresight or clue to what is going to happen. Despite of the facts and happenings taking place in the universe we currently know of, its hostility but also its beauty, the question of our existence concerns us and not the whims of a creator, so we seek purpose. However limited our scope and understanding of life's purpose, without any prevision as to where, other than death, might we be headed, our freedom consists in choosing the good over the forces of nature. There is a harsh reality that we must face and as such we will have our aspirations and virtue in sight of this realization. If I am correct, those are the thoughts of Bertrand Russel in his essay "A Free Man's Worship".
Why would someone choose a life of good over a life of evil, or vice versa? Instinctively, survival, in the majority of living organisms, is the primal force that drives behavior in animals. To consume and to devour what life allows. A good life, without morality or a common standard of living, can have any laws of its own and thus savagery could be a viable option to live. This is no different than to say that the savage might have followed the laws of power and killing and sacrificing to survive but the laws of religion, being of profound and simple truths, have given the renunciation of the material world a purpose in order for us to cease to belief in the forces of chaos. With such a purpose the gateway to reason to observe and understand. So as morality and co-existence bring the savage to newer homes, the desire to inflict pain is slowly renounced. Free to use mental faculties, to judge good from evil, the savage learns about the world and works hard to try and have ideals to be realized in the world of fact. This is the basis of our morality. To that world, the world of fact and disorder, which is distinct from the world we inwardly visualize, we either subdue or we stop and recognize the bad in it. So we might maintain our ideals of the love of only what is Good at least in thought in the face of inevitable death.
The self-assertion that is found in the fulfillment of our desires is a submission from which we learn the virtue of resignation. Our suffering, no matter how tragic it be, is a difficulty that is necessary for our transformation. Such a life is exemplified often in persons of great wisdom, of great purpose. Followed by a shadow of despair, many great people rose to victory by their use of their freedom in imagination and thought to find for their ideals a place in this world, no matter what opposition lies ahead.
The Creation of the world, to be fair, is an account of vast detail and inquiries. But we can't help but wonder if there is some purpose to this life, is there a Creator? Could it be that the Creator enjoys the chaotic universe? Whatever the motives of that person or thing, the world is a harsh place. Such is the picture also given to us by Mephistopheles in his "Creation of the Universe". That we can be swept into oblivion without foresight or clue to what is going to happen. Despite of the facts and happenings taking place in the universe we currently know of, its hostility but also its beauty, the question of our existence concerns us and not the whims of a creator, so we seek purpose. However limited our scope and understanding of life's purpose, without any prevision as to where, other than death, might we be headed, our freedom consists in choosing the good over the forces of nature. There is a harsh reality that we must face and as such we will have our aspirations and virtue in sight of this realization. If I am correct, those are the thoughts of Bertrand Russel in his essay "A Free Man's Worship".
Why would someone choose a life of good over a life of evil, or vice versa? Instinctively, survival, in the majority of living organisms, is the primal force that drives behavior in animals. To consume and to devour what life allows. A good life, without morality or a common standard of living, can have any laws of its own and thus savagery could be a viable option to live. This is no different than to say that the savage might have followed the laws of power and killing and sacrificing to survive but the laws of religion, being of profound and simple truths, have given the renunciation of the material world a purpose in order for us to cease to belief in the forces of chaos. With such a purpose the gateway to reason to observe and understand. So as morality and co-existence bring the savage to newer homes, the desire to inflict pain is slowly renounced. Free to use mental faculties, to judge good from evil, the savage learns about the world and works hard to try and have ideals to be realized in the world of fact. This is the basis of our morality. To that world, the world of fact and disorder, which is distinct from the world we inwardly visualize, we either subdue or we stop and recognize the bad in it. So we might maintain our ideals of the love of only what is Good at least in thought in the face of inevitable death.
The self-assertion that is found in the fulfillment of our desires is a submission from which we learn the virtue of resignation. Our suffering, no matter how tragic it be, is a difficulty that is necessary for our transformation. Such a life is exemplified often in persons of great wisdom, of great purpose. Followed by a shadow of despair, many great people rose to victory by their use of their freedom in imagination and thought to find for their ideals a place in this world, no matter what opposition lies ahead.
September 8, 2010
This is another book that was just ok on a first skimming, but was much more rewarding on a second reading.
This book is a series of essays that develops a mysticism based on mathematics, but without a belief in the supernatural. It starts off supporting the attitude of mysticism as a better way to live while dismissing the worldview behind it. It then presents mathematics as a fit object for mystic contemplation. In the process, a criticism of math education and a support for pure mathematics are presented.
Although the essays stand alone, when read in sequence, they build up to a unified body of thought. The blending of mysticism with science comes about very naturally, and does not violate the tenets of science (and perhaps not even those of mysticism).
I have only a few criticisms.
The first is the language gets a bit flowery at times, to the detriment of comprehension. This is especially a problem because while the titles are technically accurate, they mislead in that they don't give a sense of where the essays are heading. This is especially a problem when considered in light of my second objection below...
The subject is a bit too subtle. Math education flows naturally into pure mathematics which flows naturally into contemplation, life, ethics and dissatisfaction. It's so natural that it's easy to miss the subtle point being made.
This book is a series of essays that develops a mysticism based on mathematics, but without a belief in the supernatural. It starts off supporting the attitude of mysticism as a better way to live while dismissing the worldview behind it. It then presents mathematics as a fit object for mystic contemplation. In the process, a criticism of math education and a support for pure mathematics are presented.
Although the essays stand alone, when read in sequence, they build up to a unified body of thought. The blending of mysticism with science comes about very naturally, and does not violate the tenets of science (and perhaps not even those of mysticism).
I have only a few criticisms.
The first is the language gets a bit flowery at times, to the detriment of comprehension. This is especially a problem because while the titles are technically accurate, they mislead in that they don't give a sense of where the essays are heading. This is especially a problem when considered in light of my second objection below...
The subject is a bit too subtle. Math education flows naturally into pure mathematics which flows naturally into contemplation, life, ethics and dissatisfaction. It's so natural that it's easy to miss the subtle point being made.
May 24, 2017
Between Al-Ghazali's theologically limited philosophy and Russell's logical unbiased rationalism, I find myself in a place where I like both ways of thinking and how invisibly similar both deducted results are.
I recommend the fourth chapter for everyone out there.
I recommend the fourth chapter for everyone out there.
January 12, 2018
Sort of a strange collection - the first few essays are speeches, the last few are technical papers. I thought the first few were really good, and the essays near the end felt like he was hung up on points that seemed unimportant - it started to feel really repetitive at the end. But I am not a philosopher.
Read
May 14, 2021هذا الكتاب عبارة مجموعة مقالات داوم راسل على كتابتها في إحدى الصحف. كل مقال يقودنا نحو الشك بشيءٍ ما، فهو على يقين أن كل شيءٍ في الحياة مرتبط بالفيزياء وسبب حصوله ما هو إلا معادلة رياضية أو فيزيائية، بالنسبةِ للموحدين يعتبرون أنه دخل في جانب الغيبيات - والعياذ بالله - ولكن في النهاية أعتقد أن الفلسفة تحفز جزءًا منا على البحث والسؤال، وهذا هو سبب وجودها.
December 9, 2013
فصل مربوط به وجود خدا که منظره ای بین راسل و یک استاد الهیات در باره وجود خداست و مقاله مربوط به عرفان و منطق فوق العاده بودند. نظرات و اندیشه های راسل بسیار تاثیرگذارند یا بهتر بگم من رو خیلی تحت تاثیر قرار داده اند
July 14, 2014
بعضی قسمت های کتاب جالب و فکر برانگیز بودن.خصوصا ترجمه ی دریابندری روان و شیوا بود و مشکلاتی که خواننده در خوندن کتاب های ترجمه شده فلسفی اغلب باهاش مواجه میشه در این کتاب نبود...
موضوع دیگه ای که خیلی نظرم رو جلب کرد ، تاثیر فیزیک جدید در فلسفه بود...
موضوع دیگه ای که خیلی نظرم رو جلب کرد ، تاثیر فیزیک جدید در فلسفه بود...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 106 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.