-a layman’s take
The name of Bertrand Russell stands mighty a colossus in the domains of rational writing. He was an adept mathematician, philosopher and a free thinker and most importantly the supremacy of the church had not taken hold of him. His writings thus had the grit and wit to express radical and the then assumed unrealistic and unholy ideas with utmost clarity and unchallenged reasons. For reasons as such Russell was a subject of wrath and criticism of conventional thinkers.
With this in the hindsight and my mind ready to comprehend the labyrinths of Russell’s thinking I began reading the book “What I Believe”. The initial challenge came very early. Before late I began to realize myself in a state of contradiction more than often and I then did what I should have done before the beginning of the book. I cleared my insight of all other thoughts. Left with no other cause of worry I began my traversal on a new note and to much surprise found the thoughts a lot easier to comprehend.
Russell divides the book in five different subsections covering the aspects of morals, good lives, religion, science etc. Russell talks about the concept of life and death and conveys his beliefs on the death of body and mind. He disbelieves in the concept of immortality yet remains somewhat unopposed to the concept of the death of the mind. He ponders over the continual of the survival of the brain on scientific grounds or moreover expects such a breakthrough in the near future. His views on immortality, although are a lot more indicative of disapproval. Russell remains terse enough to conclude that it is the fear of death which inclines men towards immortality. One who does not fear death he feels is a lot less probable to fall prey to this irrational idea.
Russell remains opposed to religion and condemns the existence of either “God” or “immortality”. He calls the aforementioned couple to be the central dogmas of Christianity. He does not refrain himself from stating what feels right and calls “fear” the backbone of all religious dogmas. He accuses religions of circulating the wrong notion of fear by asking people to fear few things. Russell on a personal note refers “all fear is bad”
The notion about nature is that it is to be worshipped. Russell tries to break this misconception and calls man to be the king and feels that the kingship is hurt badly by stooping so low for an inanimate a thing as nature. He rather feels nature to be neither good nor bad and asks men not to pay reverends to it. He says hat the fear of nature gives birth to religion.
Its more than once that the reader finds himself amazed at the unopposed wit of the master to make people agree and the reasons that he uses sound just utterly sound for approval. Russell wins over the reader by a clear understanding of the matter and leaves the reader on a note of “Was that this simple?” with mixed feelings of exclamation and assertiveness.
The most important attribute of Russell’s writings is his language and ability to make people deduce in his lines. I feel it was an excellent read and the thoughts that he tries to convey so amply project themselves through the pages. Yet at places I think I lost track because of the unduly exposure of mine to writings of philosophy and that too of genres of such high standards. It still provides an interesting read as it gets unconventional right from the word “go”.
The name of Bertrand Russell stands mighty a colossus in the domains of rational writing. He was an adept mathematician, philosopher and a free thinker and most importantly the supremacy of the church had not taken hold of him. His writings thus had the grit and wit to express radical and the then assumed unrealistic and unholy ideas with utmost clarity and unchallenged reasons. For reasons as such Russell was a subject of wrath and criticism of conventional thinkers.
With this in the hindsight and my mind ready to comprehend the labyrinths of Russell’s thinking I began reading the book “What I Believe”. The initial challenge came very early. Before late I began to realize myself in a state of contradiction more than often and I then did what I should have done before the beginning of the book. I cleared my insight of all other thoughts. Left with no other cause of worry I began my traversal on a new note and to much surprise found the thoughts a lot easier to comprehend.
Russell divides the book in five different subsections covering the aspects of morals, good lives, religion, science etc. Russell talks about the concept of life and death and conveys his beliefs on the death of body and mind. He disbelieves in the concept of immortality yet remains somewhat unopposed to the concept of the death of the mind. He ponders over the continual of the survival of the brain on scientific grounds or moreover expects such a breakthrough in the near future. His views on immortality, although are a lot more indicative of disapproval. Russell remains terse enough to conclude that it is the fear of death which inclines men towards immortality. One who does not fear death he feels is a lot less probable to fall prey to this irrational idea.
Russell remains opposed to religion and condemns the existence of either “God” or “immortality”. He calls the aforementioned couple to be the central dogmas of Christianity. He does not refrain himself from stating what feels right and calls “fear” the backbone of all religious dogmas. He accuses religions of circulating the wrong notion of fear by asking people to fear few things. Russell on a personal note refers “all fear is bad”
The notion about nature is that it is to be worshipped. Russell tries to break this misconception and calls man to be the king and feels that the kingship is hurt badly by stooping so low for an inanimate a thing as nature. He rather feels nature to be neither good nor bad and asks men not to pay reverends to it. He says hat the fear of nature gives birth to religion.
Its more than once that the reader finds himself amazed at the unopposed wit of the master to make people agree and the reasons that he uses sound just utterly sound for approval. Russell wins over the reader by a clear understanding of the matter and leaves the reader on a note of “Was that this simple?” with mixed feelings of exclamation and assertiveness.
The most important attribute of Russell’s writings is his language and ability to make people deduce in his lines. I feel it was an excellent read and the thoughts that he tries to convey so amply project themselves through the pages. Yet at places I think I lost track because of the unduly exposure of mine to writings of philosophy and that too of genres of such high standards. It still provides an interesting read as it gets unconventional right from the word “go”.
No comments:
Post a Comment