The Minority Mind
Unpopular Essays. By Bertrand Russell. (Allen and Unwin 8s. 6d.) IN a preface Lord Russell explains why he has 'called these essays " unpopular." A year or two ago he wrote a book on Human Understanding which he- had believed others beside professional philosophers might understand:– Certain reviewers disillusioned him.. I will therefore confess," he now writes, " that there are several sentences in the present volume which some unusually stupid child of ten might find a little puzzling. On these grounds, I do not claim that these essays are popular ; and if not popular, then " unp6pular. " Of course it -does not follow that what is " not popular " (not meant for the general) is " unpopular " (disliked by the general),- and when a great logician writes illogically like this we know he is either jesting or persuading. What is hard to know—and it is the problem that recurs to the reader of these essays—is precisely which is which of the jest and the persuasion. Lord Russell is, by temperament, a rationalist, and the arguments he understands are those addressed to reason ; but he realises that people commonly distrust the " clever, merely logical " appeal of " antiquated rationalism." There is thus a suggestion of despair throughout the book ; as if the author felt he had been .writing far too long to have hopes of making people pay attention to his words,. But in fact people have listened ; and that, perhaps, is more than hall the trouble. As a philosopher, Lord Russell has fought meta- physics, and won. As a publicist, he has attacked the Church, capitalism and sexual taboos ; he has lived to see a con- siderable diminution of the power of all three. He has recommended Socialism and educational reform.; and both, in a large measure, have come. Yet it is clear that Lord Russell likes the world that has heeded such reformers as himself no more (and probably rather less) than the world of the past, which had not. It is still an unreasonable and cruel world ; but Lord Russell is no longer impelled to point the way to betterment. His latest essays are not so much " unpopular " as insubstantial. Some of his themes are philosophical, some general. He is about as serious—or as flippant—to the one as to the other. Often he is witty, but there are some passages which leave the reader wondering uneasily if they are meant to be. For example, in one brisk summary of philosophy, Lord Russell writes :-
(Immanuel Kant) did not know much about space, having never been more than ten miles from Koenigsberg . . . ."
Or again, on page 172 :— " When did (man) first become capable of wickedness ? Was it Homo Pekiniensis. Or was it perhaps the Piltdown man ? I went to Piltdown once, but saw no evidence of special depravity in that village."
Lord Russell is a great man, and the Homeric lapse is often just one mark of greatness ; but a wink can be much worse than a nod, and Lord Russell's intimations of frivolity do not always come across.
Nor is he as unemotional as he appears to believe. His attitude to religion is passionate and unrelenting, and where many more radically empirical philosophers will concede that there may well be religious experience although they do not personally have it, Lord Russell has no sympathy whatever for its claims. He discusses religion in the present book under " An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish." Analysis ? Or Persuasion ?
Happily, Lord Russell's sense of humour does not disap- point us here. Superstitions, he remarks, are not always dark and cruel ; often they add to the gaiety. of life.
" I received once a communication from the god Osiris, giving me his telephone number ; he lived, at that time, in a suburb of Boston. Although I did not enrol myself among his worshippers, his letter gave me pleasure. I have frequently received letters from men announcing themselves as the Messiah, and urging me not to omit to mention this important fact in my lectures.
Lord Russell has even studied the schismatic movements of the British Israelites, especially between those who believe that the British are the lost ten tribes and those who believe they are only the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. " When- ever I encounter a member of either of these sects," he writes, " I profess myself an adherent of the other, and much pleasant argumentation results."
Evidently Lord Russell has a place in his heart for the man of faith who is also a crackpot. What he cannot tolerate is the religion of intelligent people ; still less, that of rulers and ruling classes who determine conventional belief.
MAURICE CRANSTON.
Previous page
