Will Durant, in his congenial The Story of Philosophy, describes Bertrand Russell as "...resolved to be hard-headed because he knows he can not be."-This is a bit unfair, as it doesn't really take into account Russell's philosophy, merely the man. But the two are so hard to separate!-Basically, Russell believes that mysticism "is the inspirer of what is best in man." But that it is absolutely muddle-headed and has lead mankind down numerous philosophic blind alleys in the past thousand or so years (I think anyone who has read Kant or Hegel can't help but come to this conclusion).-University professors (especially those of Philosophy) are excepted from the previous parenthetical remark! -But I don't guess Russell (a Nobel prize winner in literature, by the way) matters so much anymore: This book I'm reviewing is out of print, nobody else has reviewed it and I haven't heard his name mentioned in highbrow discussions for many a year. He was a mathematical genius, wrote prose that could cut like a razor blade concerning the most abstruse subjects in a manner understandable to most laymen, and was a profound skeptic in re matters religious. This latter got him into all kinds of trouble with women's societies and the like back in the earlier part of the century and actually got him fired from the City College of New York. So he packed his bags and went to teach at Harvard.-You see, he was a British aristocrat (an Earl) and all this rabble rousing by the hoi polloi was really a non-issue for him. In his autobiography, he recounts how his mother always told him, "Never follow a crowd to do Evil." Russell never followed a crowd to do anything!-All this biographical elaboration is to help readers understand the man who wrote this book which, in a nutshell, praises the mystical impulse in its pure, unadulterated form while deploring the aforementioned philosophical muddles to which it leads, and, on the other hand, glorifies (justly) the English schools of empirical logic and the scientific progress to which they have lead. One can hardly look at this computer screen and deny this claim. All this in a lucid and thoroughly enjoyable prose. Yes, Russell has seen his days of celebrity come and go (as well as his days in general, one might add,) but if you chance by a wizened looking professor loaded down with heavyweight tomes on metaphysical systems, you might get a rather surprising response if you mention Bertie Russell. - In his day, Russell was the Mick Jagger of Philosophy, and coeds used to quarrel over who got to bed down with him that night when he came to lecture that the stuff a good proportion of their professors were teaching was, quite literally, nonsense.-And just think, he got away with it all! What fun!

When I read Russell's autobiography his genius
combined with such a humble and loveable manner
attracted me undescribably, so I got to this book.

"In the course of this book I shall be concerned to prove that the fundamental concept in social science is Power, in the same sense in which Energy is the fundamental concept in physics Like energy power has many forms, such as wealth, armaments, civil authority, influence on opinion" (P.9)
He starts his study by showing "The Impulse to Power",
and here one immediately recognizes how
power determines human action in every scale, whether
the household or the world, and at every time.
human affairs, being the development, love and hate

In Chapters 4 and 5 he differentiates Kingly Power,
and Priestly Power, identifying repating processes
in history, through which power is acquired, and lost
again. He describes various forms of power, at different
times:

Naked power over human bodies, (Ch. 6)
Revolutionary Power, (Ch. 7)
Economic Power of the Controllers of Industry (Ch. 8) and
Power over Opinion Ch 9)

"The Biology of Organisations" explains
the internal forces which press an organisation's
actions, may it be a party, a church or a chess club.

"Organisations and the Individual" shows how government
is a requirement for civilization, and how various factors
contribute to the worst people having the biggest desire
to get most power, place them into positions from which
they oppress the majority.

He concludes with the chapters "Competition", "Power and Moral
Codes", "Power Philosophies", "The Ethics of Power" and
"The Taming of Power", with the last two chapters being
of invaluable ideas for the development towards a mankind
living in cooperation instead of war; What makes his
ideas realistic, are their complete lack of dogmatism, with
the acknowledgement, that the development of live
must not be constrained in the limits of a system, and
with the primary objective, of basing most on the individual,
and only what is necessary for civilization, on the community or
the state. What's important is the human live, not an
abstract construct, a creed or an ideology, excusing the
power hungry rulers with discussions about some abstruse
goal which lies in totality and not in the individual.

I was deeply shocked when I read George Orwell's 1984, as
his insight into human minds was so overwhelmingly convincing,
and his fears so often proved right. "If you want a picture of the future,
imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever". Seeing
the world's people becoming a raging crowd, crying to a manic leader,
after last Tuesday's insane attack on the World Trade Center, a indiscribable
fear mounted in my mind again, leaving me only left to hope for the
war cries to silence again, and reason to revive, but as this is not likely,
I was at least pleased to be able to read an answer to 1984 now, which
was written 12 years before the question. With "Power", Russell gave
the world a present of his intellect; explaining the free and liberal
education of children, guiding them to a critical and reasonable
thinking, instead of making them brutal fanatics, screaming like
animals and marching behind leaders, who don't regard human
beings as the most precious and exulting part of live, but as means to power.

Anti-catholic, pro-jewish, and maybe the most important brain of our corrupt, insane, and bygone 20th century, Russell speaks for a generation that is starting to realize certain inviolable truths vital to the continuation of mankind. Doomed as we are, cynical as I am, and one-hundred per cent correct Russell is when stating human nature is actually corrigible. For when this aspect is fixed, and humans will no longer emulate quasi-virus patterns and replicate wars over and over, only then can Russell be judged as right or wrong regarding the fate of man. What is peace? What is war? What is knowledge? I consider Russell the king of intellectual snobs.

Unlike the many other great literary inspirations of the science fiction writers of the of the twentieth century, this book is not a work of science fiction.

As its name suggests, The Scientific Outlook, is an attempt to predict the next developments in science as seen from the perspective of the early 1930's.

The contents of this book were so outrageous and shocking in their time that they were best appreciated by those people who saw it as their business to show our destiny taking an unexpected turn, painting a picture of a time to come when things contrast radically with our current circumstances.

There are instances where such predictive storytelling is intended as a warning, attempting to offer an insight into how seemingly innocuous trends and apparently insignificant contemporary changes portend unforeseen (but not unforeseeable) catastrophic longer term outcomes.

Science fiction writing has a major category called 'technological extrapolation' in which the above occurs, and within that genre there is a subcategory called 'dystopia' which uses such crystal gazing to present a kind of 'negative utopia' where 'it all ends in tears'.

The two most famous twentieth century dystopias, two 'worlds turned upside down', are Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley, and '1984' by George Orwell.

Both of these great works have very strong connections to this book, the former being substantially derived from it.

Aldous Huxley was Russell's student and published Brave New World a year after The Scientific Outlook.

Orwell was strongly influenced in '1984' by Burnham's 1940 classic 'The Managerial Revolution' which has strong parallels with 'The Scientific Outlook' (although Russell claims no direct influence on Burnham, he points out the similarity of Burnham's material, which was published nearly a decade after Russell's book).

Even if the similarity to the predictions in 'The Managerial Revolution' was a freakish coincidence, the connection to Brave New world is unquestionable and the shared dystopian derivations are 'of a piece' with 1984 to the extent where, if you want to 'go back to the source' in an easily readable form (Russell's writing is razor sharp and witty, with all the historical context you could wish for in a popular science book) you could not ask for a better starting point in terms of understanding the technological roots of those two great novels.

An enjoyable and insightful read, essential for anyone trying to get to grips with the recent history and philosophy of science, especially in the highly controversial field of medical ethics, where it is possible to see eugenics from a standpoint which preceded its post-war ethical and political denunciation.

Herling maintains a sombre note throughout the book, but he rarely judges or seeks revenge. Very similar to Primo Levi, Herling decides to portray the horror of a place where very few accounts survive in an almost detached account. He compliments matter-of-fact observation with more metaphysical psycholoically challenging idealism, a style that works well without ever confusing either the reader or the issue. Despite the overall tone, he even manages to inject some scattered humour, illustrating that the human animal is a very accepting species. As long as one has hope, almost anything can be survived. This book is perhaps one of the most valuable insights to an almost ignored horror.

As others have commented, this is a very good introduction to the basic topics of philosophy from a great 20th century philosopher. Russell focuses almost entirely on epistemology in this book, offering a thorough grounding of the most fundamental issues of human knowledge. The writing is very clear and straightforward in a way that is good for both the philosopher and general public. I couldn't have dreamed of a better writing style for such a book topic.

I gave the book 4 stars instead of 5 because the focus is pretty much entirely on epistemology and I feel Russell does not discuss metaphysics or ethics as much as he could have. But don't let that discourage you...this book is valuable to the philosophical newcomer.

I bought this book because it was recommended for further reading in my philosophy class. I figured it was going to be a pure drag...you know, Huge words, vague sentences, so on and so on. I have to say that this book is the complete opposite. Bertrand Russell brings the topics right down to earth and explains them in a way that the average person can understand. The last chapter, "The value of Philosophy" is written with beautiful style and is an enjoyment to read. Here is a qoute from this chapter

"Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possiblities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what the may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never travelled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familar things in an unfamilar aspect."

This book definetely has sparked in me an interest in philosophy. If you are even remotely interested in the subject, I recommend you buying it too.

This is my favorite book of Bertrand Russell's, both as an introductory and technical work, and it is probably so because he wrote it before he went too deeply into analytical and empiricist philosophy to remember his rationalist roots. ...His summaries of Rationalism vs. Empiricism are also excellent, though 20th century rationalism is probably today what he describes as the middle ground position between both views in his book. Most 20th century rationalists accept the *causal* importance of sensory perception in forming many *a priori* beliefs, so the new term is not *a priori* knowledge, but *a priori* justification. Empiricism is the dominant school in philosophy today, but I think that will change in time because empiricism cannot justify many of its epistemological conclusions in any way that do not undermine the justificatory role of thought.

Some of the accounts of "sense data" and "knowledge by description" are a bit tortured, partly because Russell tried to avoid metaphysics as much as possible, and I personally do not believe that they are ultimately correct. However, the discussions are still good introductions. People who read more rationalist philosophy from the likes of Brand Blanshard and Laurence Bonjour as well as analytic philosophers like David Armstrong will get a better insignt into where the real debates about some of these issues lie.

On the whole, a good introduction to philosophy, even though it doesn't touch upon ethics and politics. However, philosophy is a difficult subject and one book, even the best introduction, cannot make clear all the problems that some of the best minds in history have wrestled over...

Wittgenstein's first published work. Should be as famous for Russell's misunderstanding of it, made obvious in his introduction, as for it's effect on the positivists and modern philosophical logic. Absolutely essential reading for studying Wittgenstein's later work. The Investigations can be read as a refutation of the Tractatus, and thereby, as a refutation of much of contemporary philosophy of language. While Wittgenstein doesn't help his readers with either references or explanatory preamble, the effort of reading this book will be well rewarded to anybody studying contemporary issues in philosophical logic, philosophy of language or philosophy of science. Whatismore, Wittgenstein's poetic style is a joy to read and many of his aphorisms will come back to you in other studies.

Those not familiar with the proprositional calculus may not like the symbolic logic involved, but it is worth understanding because it is quite simple and makes the rest of the text very easily understandable. Wittgenstein's most important terms like 'elementary proposition' come essentially from viewing natural languages as an imperfect version of the propositional calculus. This idea is quite wrong, in fact even Wittgenstein himself was struck by his own naivety in believing that all language did was put forward propositions capable of truth or falsity. His later view that to understand language you must look at it, seems blindingly obvious, but he was just reacting to the general view of the logical positivist who only saw meaning in propositions capable of truth or falsity, which does not in any way match up with how we actually use language in everyday life. The idea of "pictoral form", a mysterious connection between the object relations of the real world, and the grammatical structure of the sentence is a beautiful and impressive idea, but lacks any real grounding in fact.

Many would disagree, but I say ignore the numbered paragraphs and just read it through, Wittgenstein was just using a technique he learnt from engineering textbooks, and the structure doesn't help understanding. Many people will be frustrated by the lack of argument, and its almost biblical tone, but trust me, anyone familiar with Wittgenstein's life will know that he thought over these problems for a long time.

Philosophical Investigations is a more important work, but shares nearly all the concerns of the Tractacus. Read the section in the Investigations on broomsticks and logical atomism, it will show the bankruptcy and arbitraryness of atomism in linguistic practise.

Wittgenstein is the all-time father of logical philosophy, save Bertrand Russell. Read Russell, Whitehead and Frege if you want to get into complex mathematical formulas and neverending inquiries, but read Wittgenstein for better understanding. Wittgenstein showed his genius of analytical and logical philosophy in TLP. (As well as his genius of analyzing linguistic philosophy. C'est parfait!

Lord Russell sets the indicative tone for this collection of mostly polemical essays in his Preface, when he explains his choice of the adjective "Unpopular" in his title. "...There are several sentences in the present volume which some unusually stupid children of ten might find a little puzzling. On this ground I do not claim that the essays are popular; and if not popular, then 'unpopular.'" Russell says exactly what he thinks, has no patience for fools and does not hesitate to ridicule muddled thinking and wrong-headed beliefs wherever he may find them.

This work contains 10 essays written between 1935 and 1950, with the common theme being the pernicious impact of dogmatic, unsupportable beliefs. By and large, Russell is highly effective in making his case across a broad range of topics, from the debunking of philosophy's giants such as Plato ("That Plato's Republic should have been admired, on its political side, by decent people is perhaps the most astonishing example of literary snobbery in all history."), Aristotle ("Aristotle, in spite of his reputation, is full of absurdities.") and Hegel ("To anyone who still cherishes the hope that man is a more or less rational animal, the success of this farrago of nonsense must be astonishing.") to the fallacies of discrimination against women, xenophobia and our modern public education system.

His sharpest attacks are reserved for Man's superstitions and particularly for those of the religious variety. Russell is a well-known rationalist thinker and atheist and his views are driven by the common sense dictum that one should only believe that which has sufficient supporting, scientific evidence. This leads to the view that deism is unlikely and that modern revealed religions are pure folly. He convincingly notes the common drivers of these fatuous beliefs across epochs to be fear, a need for self-importance, ignorance and socialization.

My primary issue with Russell is that, while he ostensibly ascribes to a "Liberal" worldview (i.e. a scientific perspective on facts and opinions that holds positions tentatively with a "consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment.") and excoriates dogmatic beliefs, he can be, in fact, highly dogmatic in the presentation of his views. This is particularly disturbing when he ventures into areas he clearly does not fully grasp, such as economics. In "The Future of Mankind" (far and away the weakest of the 10 essays), he makes the highly naïve, silly statement that "Unless we can cope with the problem of abolishing war, there is no reason whatever to rejoice in labor-saving techniques, but quite the reverse." His point is that higher labor productivity leads to a lower labor requirement to generate life's necessities, thereby freeing up more people for war. Refuting this nonsense hardly seems necessary, but it should be clear that labor does not automatically flow from food production to war production and that more evolved economies do not automatically lead to more war mongering.

Notwithstanding these occasional pratfalls from the platform of reason, Russell is for the most part extremely lucid in his analyses and views. He is also sharp-witted and entertaining in his gleeful exposition of folly. All of this results in prose which is remarkably easy to read while provoking rational thought and leads to my 4-star rating.

I had never read anything by Bertrand Russell before. I thought he would be difficult, but these essays were lucid and humorous. He manages to demolish the theories of almost every great philosopher of the past. His predictions for the future, either chaos or world government, haven't materialized yet, but either is still a possibility.

Here is a short and easy way of capturing the sparkle and pixie wit of Lord Russell. It is also a good way to keep yourself laughing continuously in impish delight for several hours as Russell skewers dogma after dogma. One is reminded of nothing so much as a lightweight master of the epee skipping through an army of Goliaths armed with heavy truncheons and running his sword through them, one after another, before they know what has happened.-Just one example, the philosophic Goliath known as Aristotle: "Aristotle, in spite of his reputation, is full of absurdities. He says that children should be conceived in the winter, when the wind is in the north, and that if people marry too young the children will be female. He tells us that the blood of the female is blacker than that of males...that women have fewer teeth than men and so on. Nevertheless, he is considered by the great majority of philosophers a paragon of wisdom." So much for Aristotle. He also never tires of skewering the clergy in general and their obscurantism. One of the most amusing sections is his account of the clergy's reaction to the invention of the lighning-rod: "When Benjamin Franklin invented the lightning-rod, the clergy, both in England and America, with the enthusiastic support of George III, condemned it as an impious attempt to defeat the will of God. For, as all right-thinking people were aware, lightning is sent by God to punish impiety or some other grave sin-the virtuous are never struck by lightning. Therefore if God wants to strike anyone, Benjamin ought not to defeat His design..." Finally, he wasn't above a little irony in his self-penned obituary by an imaginary Obit. writer, "...His life, for all its waywardness, had a certain anachronistic consistency, reminiscent of the aristocratic rebels of the early nineteenth century. His principles were curious, but, such as they were, they governed his actions. In private life he showed none of the acerbity that marred his writings, but was a genial conversationalist and not devoid of human sympathy..."-Nobody with even the slightest mote of skepticism toward all the nonsense that's passed for wisdom and deep philosophy in ages heretofore and with a spark of life and sense of humor can leave this book without a lighter heart than when he or she first picked it up.-I can't think of any higher praise for a book.

As a novice in the world of formal philosophy, I was entirely grateful for the existence of this book. Russell offers not only an expansive view of western philosophy within rigorous historical context, but manages to convey much of his own philosophy within his critiques. I came, over time, to look at this book as more an expression of Russell's philosophy in relation to the entire course of western thought. How could it be anything different? Russell's perspective is, however well-informed, quite one-sided. So much so that the individual philosophers he takes on have no hope of a fair trial. However much I agree with him about Nietzsche, Russell does not even attempt to be fair. Better to appreciate this book for what it is: a personal view. As such, it is quite expansive, and if you need to know more about western philosophy, you'll easily fill in the missing pieces if you start here. But don't run away hurt if your favorite philosopher gets short shrift - I also find myself disagreeing with Russell in many areas. Instead, as you read, try to keep what he accomplishes here separate from how he does it. This is truly a great work, and downplaying its importance because of skipping or riding some particular fellow would be like criticizing the Great Wall of China because they used sub-par mortar. Here is a journey through history through the eyes of one great man. Keep yours open and you may learn something.

This is one of the best books I have ever read. Over the years, I have enjoyed reading and reareading it, learning something new all the time. Russell's writing is superb. His analysis is based on the commitment to consider the facts carefully and to reason about them logically and responsibly. In writing my own reviews, I often keep this book in mind as a model.

Although Russell always includes a personal commentary on a particular philosopher, this does not undermine the objectivity and value of his analysis, because it is fairly easy to see where a summary of what the philospher had to say ends and Russell's interpretation begins. Russell's erudition is truly impressive. I agree with almost all of his assessments of philosophers in this volume. Russel was a logician, not a scientist--there is a big difference. The book was written in 1943, yet Russell seems unaware of Popper's falsifability criterion for statements that purport to be scientific. But generally, the book is very close to perfection. This is philosophy in context and ideas brought to life from one of the best writers and one of the most brilliant minds of the twentieth century.

Sir Bertrand Russell is one of the most important philosophers and mathematicians of the 20th century and in this book, targeted to the lay person, he endeavours to explain what is behind the rationale of each and every important Western philosopher since Greek Antiquity and what was his contribution to modern Western thinking.
His own philosophical ideas are portrayed in the end of the book by means of him showing what was right and wrong in his opinio in the most modern theories which he helped to develop in paralell to Whitehead, Wittgestein , Moore and others.
The book begins with a very detailed description of the philosophical background in ancient Greece (circa 700 BC), portraying the thinking of Thales, Plato, Aristotle and all Greek philosophers important at the time and later, explaining the pros and cons of the philosophy each one embraced, giving a lot of pertinent and useful historical information on the historical background of each period. He does also adequate coverage of the oral tradition of the Iliad and Odissey, the foundations of Western literature.
From Ancient Greece, to whom it devotes the greatest part of the book covering the ideas of Plato, Socrates and Aristotles, he goes to the heiday of the Roman Empire and the first steps of Christian Philosophy, to the period of the Arab conquest, Religious thought at the Middle Ages, the Scholastics thinkers, the rise of the Scientific thought in the 18th century, until the year where the book was written (1945). The at the time raging World War II gives special scope to Bertrand Russel, a notorious/contradictory pacifist, to show some philosophical schools as a spring board to Soviet totalitarianism and others to Nazism. It is interesting to note that, as happened also with other subjects in which Russell deep dived, socialisma and communism were of such issues where he many times changed his mind in the course of his long and fruitful life.

This book (836 pages)is a serious effort to portray the best minds of Western civilization in a very clear and precise light, trademarks of Lord Bertrand Russel. There you will know that Nietszche, besides praising as semi-gods persons like Napoleon, Frederic II and Julio Cesar, great men who deserved to use all the means available in order to perpetrate their indidual ends, ended his shrot life mentally insane. Also, some very negative facts of the life of the great French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau are there, like, for instance, the lightness with which Rousseau had himself disentangled from robbery accusations by fingerpointing a woman servant he knew was not guilty. Sure, despite being a very devastating malefic influence to everybody around him, Lord Bertrand Russel had a high opinion of himself, never seeming to undertand that evil doing was a two-way road, that is, that he did evil to others as they did him.
In my opinion, this is a very good reading for anyone interested in Philosophy, rational thinking, theories of origins of God, theories of the State, etc..Strange as it seems, not only one woman appears as a great thinker, one thing it would not be the same if the book was written today, where the general masculine bias would be pretty much diminished. Regarding Russell, he manifestly had a clear disdain for every thought emanated from women, something Mr.Ray Monk says was determined by the fact that Lord Russel lost his mother very early in his childhood.

This is a wonderful book, despite the passage of considerable time. Written shortly after WWI, there are occasional references to people and things no longer on the modern radar scope. And, as philosophical writing goes, Russell is better than most in constructing intelligible sentences and paragraphs that don't require repeated reading to understand.

This book is about life. Russell uses his analytic empiricism to discuss typically pop-psychological issues: Boredom, Excitement, Envy, Sin, Persecution, Public Opinion, Zest, etc. But his approach, dated back in time, is refreshingly new and helpful in the present. Indeed, Russell shows himself redolent in wisdom, the true aim of philosophy, and tackles issues that are at the core of what constitutes happiness and its opposites.

Because Russell appeals to his empirical views analytically arrived, there is a sense of wonderment and awe at such simple solutions to difficult problems in modern life. These solutions aren't dressed in pop-ism, but in a perennial philosophy that takes wisdom, not pop-up tapes of life, seriously.

The Atlantic Monthly claimed this book to be a "primer of self-regeneration . . . a most excellent book." This praise is not unwarranted, and given that commonsense is the center of the whole enterprise, its wisdom will endure not only when it was written in the 1920s, but today, and tomorrow.

I must admit I'm a fan of Russell, so I tend to be a bit biased. But I also think that Russell really has, as one person put it, "hit the nail on the head" with this book on happiness.

Russell divides the book into two parts (essentially). One is devoted to the causes of unhappiness, with chapters on persecution mania, fear, envy, boredom and excitement, fatigue, the sense of sin, and fear of public opinion, among others. I found the chapter on fear to be the most interesting, although they all were fascinating. In chapter 9, Fear of Public Opinion, Russell alleges that many people drive themselves to unhappiness by trying to conform to others and/or being afraid of opprobrium from friends, family, or co-workers. Of course, the chapter itself is much better than my terse summary.

The next part of the book is devoted to the causes of happiness, with chpaters on: zest, affection, family, work, hobbies, and effort. I found this part to be of lower quality than the first. If one works backward from Russell's causes of unhappiness, than one would come across interesting ways of finding happiness. In others words, if you discovered that you were submerged in unbearable (perhaps religious) guilt all the time, than perhaps some rationalization would help. For example, let's say you're a woman, you've been raped, and you have an abortion. You are under a tremendous amount of guilt because you happen to be a conservative (theologically) Baptist. What do you do about your religious guilt, which is ruining your life?

I think Russell should've devoted a section to his causes of happiness part of the book to getting out of the causes of unhappiness. Not that he doesn't make a half-attempt to do this, but I really would've liked to see whole chapters devoted to the subject, not whole paragrahps or pages.

All in all, this book, taken with all of Russell's work on social problems, is (as "Time" magazine says) a modern substitute for the Bible. Russell really does see the problems of modern society, and his solutions are still relevant after more than 70 years.

The monograph, written by Russell at the age of 58 (he lived to 98), is first and foremost a self-help book. As Russell clearly states in the preface, the book contains "no profound philosophy or deep erudition," and was "aimed only at putting together some remarks which are inspired by what I [Russell] hope is common sense." And how wonderful those remarks were.

As with any self-help book, there aren't that many _new_ facts to learn within. Rather there is a certain view of the world the authors offer, and it is their congeniality and their own conviction in their view that provide readers with consolation, and motivation to try out such view. Russell's view is that the world is abundant with joy to be explored and discovered. The programs he suggests for conquering happiness, most notably, were 1) to face whatever fear you behold with sincerity and conviction that they are possible to overcome (Russell regards even one's unconscious changeable with sufficient vigor and intensity), 2) enjoy to its fullest extent what life has to offer no matter how trivial the source of enjoyment are perceived by others insofar as the act of pursuing enjoyment do not harm others (example: Russell's Gardner was fascinated in hunting rabbits!), and 3) to realize that whatever happens to oneself is not all that important after all (Russell's such laissez faire-ish view is exemplified by his words: "in the broad stream of history nothing is of paramount importance..."). With a mathematician's rigor Russell in each chapter scoped out what the problem he wished to take on, and laid out his solutions, logically deduced from common sense. I was convinced.

However it was not so much the solutions Russell provided that made me enjoy this book. What I enjoyed most was the chance to peek into a mind that appeared to me to be naive and held no pretense: "I shall therefore assume that the reader would rather be happy than unhappy. Whether I can help him to realize this wish, I do not know; but at any rate the attempt can do no harm." To see people attempting to overcome difficulties in their utmost sincerity, in my view, provides one with the ultimate consolation.