Customer Reviews

RC Series Bundle: In Praise of Idleness: And Other Essays (Routledge Classics)

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Russell became famous as a mathematician and philosopher.

But when he won the Nobel Prize, it was for Literature. When you read this book of essays, you will see why.

It is beautifully written and has all of Russell's virtues: clarity, wit, humor, forcefulness, simplicity.

Even better, it is a brief education in itself. Most of the essays were written just as the Great Depression was beginning, and Russell gets right to the heart of a problem Capitalists and Socialists do not usually address: How much work is needed, and what is the ultimate point? He constantly stresses that we do too much work, and most of it is unneeded, and makes life grim. He never ceases to remind us that we should work to live, not live to work.

He addresses this point in many ways--through economics, through architecture, through the then-raging problems of Fascism and Communism. And though he treats serious problems seriously, he always has time for the breathtaking perspective and the ligtht touch--as with the essay, "Man Versus Insects."

A wonderful, even life-changing book.

+++++

Controversial philosopher and Nobel Prize winner Lord Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) has written fifteen scintillating essays on which to whet our intellectual appetites. These short essays were written between 1925 and 1935.

Russell writes in an elegant, readable, and understandable style. His arguments are well thought out.

These essays consider social questions not discussed in politics. The general theme that ties these essays together is that the world suffers from dogmatism and narrowness; what is needed is the willingness to question dogma.

These essays are a blend of philosophy with other disciplines such as psychology, economics, science, and history. All the essays are brutally honest and forthright. Each is packed with loads of wisdom. What's amazing is that these essays are as current today as when they were first written and their messages will probably remain relevant in the future.

My five favorite essays in this collection include the following:

(1) "In Praise of Idleness." Discusses work and the importance of leisure. In order to get an idea of Russell's insight that permeates this book, here's a sample sentence from this essay: "The morality of work is the morality of slaves, and the modern world has no need of slavery."

(2) "'Useless' Knowledge." Points out that all knowledge is useful not only that which has a practical value.

(3) "The Case for Socialism." Russell gives many arguments in favor of socialism, most notably the need for preventing war.

(4) "Western Civilization." Discusses its characteristics. Sample sentence: "I cannot escape from the conclusion that the great ages of progress have depended upon a small number of individuals of transcendent utility."

(5) "Education and Discipline." Sample sentence: "Education...must be something more positive than mere opportunity for growth...it must...also provide a mental and moral equipment [for] children."

In conclusion, this book is Bertrand Russell at his best. Enjoy!

+++++

This is one book where you must read the introduction. and then when you read the book you find out thatthe book can be interpreted in at least one other way. i think everybody would take out something different but that would always be refreshing. i could not stop myself from saying 'aha' at many places. still, i think he sometimes is contradicting himself. he thinks that socialism and liberalism can go together. maybe he is right. i dont think so.

Written by a very advanced thinker, this book represents a shattering statement against the Christian petit-burgois morality of work, a true revolution and evolution in man's thinking.

I like reading the works of Bertrand Russell. He is a crisp and thoughtful writer, and a penetrating and skilled philosopher. But we can't be great at everything and unfortunately, "In Praise of Idleness" highlights Dr. Russell's naivete when it comes to social and political commentary.

And more unfortunate still, the most naive essay of all is the title essay. In it, Dr. Russell outlines a vision whereby all able-bodied individuals would need only to work for four hours a day. Russell abhors work, and true to his upper-cust raisings, cannot see why it is really all that necessary. What he does not realize is that the beauty of the capitalism he so detests is that it allows the individual - rather than a majority vote or a dictator - choose how much work they will do based on how much "reward" they want. Should they want high reward, they can choose to work more and harder. Should they want less financial reward, they can choose a less stressful job. (Russell also misses the fact that, while many of us do detest work, they would detest it more if they did not own the fruits of their labor via wages in a capitalistic system. After all, many people work only because there is a financial motivator.)

His essay extolling the usefulness of useless knowledge is actually quite good. Rather than arguing - as its title might suggest - against a pragmatic view of knowledge (that only "useful" knowledge is worth anything), Russell argues to expand the definition of "useful." Knowledge that contributes to an individuals mental well-being, knowledge that is interesting, and knowledge that is just plain fun to think about, is every bit as useful to individuals as knowlege that helps us dig ditches, structure economies, etc. (To be useful, knowledge need not always be SOCIALLY useful.)

Much of the rest of Russell's naivete comes from offering good criticisms of fascism and communism only to forget that these criticisms may be applied to the socialism that Russell champions. The fact that centralizing power, for instance, in a dictator is a reason to jettison fascism and Marxism is every bit a reason to be wary of any attempts at political centralization - even socialist ones! To put it bluntly, Russell is so interested in his utopian vision of socialism in the abstract that he forgets to think about what socialism actually looks like in practice. (In Russell's mind, for instance, socialism somehow avoids consolidating power in an omnipotent central government. But doesn't planning need planners and delegators? And how do they differ from dictators?)

To be honest, I think Bertrand Russell shows evidence in this book of a huge blindspot. As an upper-cruster, he is appalled that people have to do such dastardly things as work and contract their labor. As an upper-cruster, he thinks that a decent way of life is possible without the type of industry that requires people to work more than four hours per day. And as an upper-cruster, he believes that everyone should be guaranteed a certain level of income regardless of what they accomplish.

In other words, Russell is simply not as penetrating as a social theorist as he is as a philosopher. This book is as clearly written and entertaining as other books by Russell, but he is clearly out of his element.