Image by J. F. Horrabin, via Wikimedia Commons
Bertrand Russell saw the history of civilization as being shaped by an unfortunate oscillation between two opposing evils: tyranny and anarchy, each of which contain the seed of the other. The best course for steering clear of either one, Russell maintained, is liberalism.
“The doctrine of liberalism is an attempt to escape from this endless oscillation,” writes Russell in A History of Western Philosophy. “The essence of liberalism is an attempt to secure a social order not based on irrational dogma [a feature of tyranny], and insuring stability [which anarchy undermines] without involving more restraints than are necessary for the preservation of the community.”
In 1951 Russell published an article in The New York Times Magazine, “The Best Answer to Fanaticism–Liberalism,” with the subtitle: “Its calm search for truth, viewed as dangerous in many places, remains the hope of humanity.” In the article, Russell writes that “Liberalism is not so much a creed as a disposition. It is, indeed, opposed to creeds.” He continues:
But the liberal attitude does not say that you should oppose authority. It says only that you should be free to oppose authority, which is quite a different thing. The essence of the liberal outlook in the intellectual sphere is a belief that unbiased discussion is a useful thing and that men should be free to question anything if they can support their questioning by solid arguments. The opposite view, which is maintained by those who cannot be called liberals, is that the truth is already known, and that to question it is necessarily subversive.
Russell criticizes the radical who would advocate change at any cost. Echoing the philosopher John Locke, who had a profound influence on the authors of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, Russell writes:
The teacher who urges doctrines subversive to existing authority does not, if he is a liberal, advocate the establishment of a new authority even more tyrannical than the old. He advocates certain limits to the exercise of authority, and he wishes these limits to be observed not only when the authority would support a creed with which he disagrees but also when it would support one with which he is in complete agreement. I am, for my part, a believer in democracy, but I do not like a regime which makes belief in democracy compulsory.
Russell concludes the New York Times piece by offering a “new decalogue” with advice on how to live one’s life in the spirit of liberalism. “The Ten Commandments that, as a teacher, I should wish to promulgate, might be set forth as follows,” he says:
1: Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
2: Do not think it worthwhile to produce belief by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.
3: Never try to discourage thinking, for you are sure to succeed.
4: When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.
5: Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.
6: Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.
7: Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
8: Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.
9: Be scrupulously truthful, even when truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.
10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness.
Wise words then. Wise words now.
Note: An earlier version of this post appeared on our site in March, 2013.
If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newsletter, please find it here.
If you would like to support the mission of Open Culture, consider making a donation to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your contributions will help us continue providing the best free cultural and educational materials to learners everywhere. You can contribute through PayPal, Patreon, Venmo (@openculture) and Crypto. Thanks!
via Brain Pickings
Related Content:
Bertrand Russell: The Everyday Benefit of Philosophy Is That It Helps You Live with Uncertainty
Bertrand Russell Authority and the Individual (1948)
Maybe someone here can forward this the American media!
À mon avis ce sont des paroles d’un sage
comme j’aime bien mettre en pratique
The fifth commandment goes against, at least in spirit, listening to advice from Russell himself! Otherwise, much of value here. Respect for authority (legal, scholarly, philosophical, scientific, medical, what have you) can (and should) be conditional and contingent or presumptive, in which case I have no problem with it. Ill-educated people (a condition for which they are not always blameworthy) and people who are obstinately unintelligent (a condition of willful ignorance) have absolutely no respect for authority (i.e., they are constitutionally incapable of learning from others who may be more intelligent than they fancy themselves to be, a situation which occurs in my country with much frequency).
I think no.5 still supports listening to advice from anyone. The extent to which that advice should be assimilated tho… should be nowt to do with that person’s perceived ‘authority’.
In practice of course we can’t avoid ending up listening to particular people’s advice more based on the heuristic of authority, nor should we… but we certainly can control for extra scrutiny on authoritative advice’s merit, and arguably we -should- do this in order to compensate against the filtering which causes people in authority to be heard more than people without it.
Most people do this readily though.. and I fear it’s more of a 21st century phenomenon where ruling elite exploit the emotions around this with rhetoric like ‘we’ve had enough of experts!’
(Michael Gove is an arsehole, basically.)
But I honestly can’t think of a possible scenario where someone could be ‘wilfully’ unintelligent. I’ve grown up around cultures of people who dismiss being a geek as highly undesirable, sure… but that’s surely just a changing of the goalposts. I.e. ‘It’s better to be what I perceive as savvy rather than what is popularly deemed intelligent at my school’… -> really they’re just opting for a better way to ‘be’ and I reckon, that whether they use the word ‘intelligent’ or not they’re trying to arrive at the best way to ‘think’.. so they’re effectively replacing intelligent with ‘savvy’ or whatever they want, in terms of how this word is useful.
Is this not still the case irrespective of philosophical/scientific definitions of the term ‘intelligent’… or whether we would deem their thinking to be actually conducive to any objective advantage (avoiding moral relativism)? I don’t think this is akin to the scourge of ‘alternative facts’.. because their distrust in authority is too deep for them to hear the original fact in the first place.
I could be talking a load of old balls. I’m sure there’s some old philosophy here along the lines of ‘people inherently cannot seek self harm, however they might manage to achieve it in convoluted ways’, which might be relevant.