BERTRAND RUSSELL
1872-1970
Τί κάναμε για την ειρήνη;
What Is the Soul?
On Sales Resistance
Στ.Γ.Φραγκόπουλος
Τί κάναμε για την ειρήνη (1967)

Επιστολή στην εφημερίδα «Independent», από την ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΟΤΥΠΙΑ, 1/3/2003

«Εφτασε η στιγμή να προχωρήσω σε μιαν επισκόπηση όλης μου της ζωής και να αναρωτηθώ αν χρησίμεψε σε κάποιον ωφέλιμο σκοπό ή αν αφιερώθηκε ολικά σε μηδαμινά πράγματα. Δυστυχώς κανείς δεν είναι σε θέση να μου δώσει μιαν απάντηση, γιατί κανείς δεν γνωρίζει το μέλλον. Τα σύγχρονα όπλα μάς δίνουν τη βεβαιότητα ότι ο προσεχής παγκόσμιος πόλεμος θα αφανίσει την ανθρώπινη φυλή. Οποιος ενδιαφέρεται για το μέλλον που μας περιμένει πρέπει επομένως να επιλέξει ανάμεσα στο μηδέν και σε μια κάποια συμφιλίωση, όχι για μία φορά αλλά για όλους τους μελλοντικούς αιώνες, όσο ο ήλιος δεν θα έχει ψυχρανθεί. Οι πολιτικοί μας ωστόσο δεν είναι μαθημένοι σε επιλογές αυτού του τύπου. Οσο και να προσπαθήσουν, ο νους τους ολισθαίνει αθεράπευτα προς τις αίθουσες των δικαστηρίων και τον κόσμο του εγκλήματος. Αν, υποκινούμενος από αβρότητα, ο τελευταίος άνθρωπος προβλέπει τη δολοφονία όλων των ανθρώπων με εξαίρεση τον εαυτό του, όλη η προπαγάνδα υπέρ της εφαρμογής του νόμου φαντάζεται τον αστυνομικό μηχανισμό, τη Σκότλαντ Γιαρντ και τους δικαστές έτοιμους να τον συλλάβουν και να τον τιμωρήσουν. Αλλά τα γεγονότα δεν θα συμβούν με αυτόν τον τρόπο. Πρώτα θα έρθει ο θάνατος όλων των κατοίκων της Νέας Υόρκης ή του Λονδίνου ή του Πεκίνου ή του Τόκιο, έπειτα ο θάνατος θα διαδοθεί βαθμιαία στη χώρα, δηλαδή θα υπάρξει ο λιμός εξαιτίας της κατάρρευσης του εμπορίου και τέλος, με ένα ρόγχο, ένας τρομερός μοναχικός θάνατος πάνω στα βουνά και έπειτα μια αιώνια σιωπή.

Αν οι Μεγάλες Δυνάμεις επιμείνουν στην τωρινή πολιτική, ένα παρόμοιο τέλος είναι αναπόφευκτο. Οταν δύο ή περισσότερες δυνάμεις δεν συμφωνούν, τι μπορούν να κάνουν; Ο Α μπορεί να κάνει παραχωρήσεις στον Β ή ο Β στον Α ή μπορούν να φτάσουν σε ένα συμβιβασμό ή να πολεμήσουν. Αν και οι δύο υποχωρήσουν θεωρούνται λιπόψυχοι. Αν δεν θέλουν να πέσουν πιο χαμηλά στην κλίμακα της ισχύος, πρέπει να παλέψουν ή να βρουν συμμάχους. Επειδή ο αριθμός των εθνών είναι πεπερασμένος, αυτή η διαδικασία φτάνει σύντομα σε ένα τέρμα. Από το τέλος του Β' Παγκοσμίου Πολέμου κι έπειτα παρακολουθήσαμε όλα τα στάδια μιας παρόμοιας εξέλιξης...

Ποιο είναι το τωρινό σύστημα; Οταν υπάρχει μια διαμάχη συγκαλείται μια συνδιάσκεψη, τα δύο μέρη συζητούν και φτάνουν σε δυο συμβιβασμούς που επικυρώνονται ο ένας από τη μια και ο άλλος από την άλλη πλευρά. Αν και οι δύο συμβιβασμοί περιλαμβάνουν ρήτρες αφοπλισμού και τα δύο μέρη γνωρίζουν ότι αυτές οι ρήτρες μπορούν να παραβιαστούν. Και έτσι δεν γίνεται τίποτα. Οι μεγάλες δυνάμεις θα 'πρεπε να μάθουν ότι "η ειρήνη αποτελεί για όλους το ύψιστο συμφέρον".

Τι έχει γίνει γι' αυτόν το σκοπό και ποια υπήρξε η δική μου προσωπική συμβολή; Στη δημόσια σφαίρα, στις σχέσεις μεταξύ των κρατών, πολύ λίγα πράγματα έχουν γίνει, αλλά, παρ' όλα αυτά, κάτι είναι κι αυτό. Αν η ειρήνη μπορέσει να διαρκέσει για τα προσεχή 10 χρόνια, είναι ίσως θεμιτό να ελπίζουμε.

Και οι απλοί πολίτες τι μπορούν να κάνουν στο μεταξύ; Μπορούν να κινητοποιηθούν για να καταδείξουν τα αποτελέσματα ενός σύγχρονου πολέμου και τον κίνδυνο του αφανισμού των ανθρώπων. Μπορούν να διδάξουν στους ανθρώπους να μη μισούν τους λαούς που διαφέρουν από το λαό στον οποίο ανήκουν ή να ενεργούν έτσι ώστε και αυτοί να μη μισούνται με τη σειρά τους. Μπορούν να προβάλουν τις κατακτήσεις του ανθρώπου στις τέχνες και τις επιστήμες. Μπορούν να εξάρουν την υπεροχή της συνεργασίας σε σχέση με τον ανταγωνισμό.

Εγώ, τέλος, έχω κάνει κάτι για να προωθήσω αυτούς τους σκοπούς; Ισως να έχω κάνει κάτι, αλλά πολύ μικρό, αλίμονο, σε σχέση με το μέγεθος του κακού. Στην Αγγλία και στις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες ενθάρρυνα μερικούς ανθρώπους να εκφράσουν φιλελεύθερες ιδέες ή και τους τρόμαξα αποκαλύπτοντας τι μπορούν να κάνουν τα σύγχρονα όπλα. Δεν είναι πολλά αυτά που έκανα, αλλά αν όλοι είχαν κάνει άλλα τόσα αυτή η γη θα γινόταν σύντομα ένας παράδεισος.

Σκεφτείτε για μια στιγμή τι είναι ο πλανήτης μας και τι θα μπορούσε να είναι. Τώρα για τους περισσότερους ανθρώπους υπάρχουν μόχθος και πείνα, συνεχείς κίνδυνοι και περισσότερο μίσος παρά αγάπη.

Ο κόσμος μας θα μπορούσε να είναι ένας ευτυχισμένος κόσμος αν η συνεργασία εφαρμοζόταν περισσότερο από τον ανταγωνισμό, αν η μονότονη εργασία γινόταν από μηχανές, αν ό,τι ωραίο υπάρχει στη φύση δεν καταστρεφόταν για να παραχωρήσει τη θέση του σε τρομερές μηχανές που δημιουργήθηκαν μόνο για να σκοτώνουν, αν αυτό που ευνοεί τη χαρά γινόταν περισσότερο σεβαστό από το να μετράμε βουνά από πτώματα. Μην πείτε ότι αυτό είναι αδύνατο. Δεν είναι. Εγκειται μόνο στους ανθρώπους να το προτιμήσουν από το μαρτύριο. Φυλακισμένος μέσα στον καθένα μας υπάρχει ένας καλλιτέχνης. Αφήστε τον ελεύθερο για να σκορπίσει παντού χαρά».
Επιστροφή στην κορυφή

.(μήνυμα)

What Is the Soul? (1928)

One of the most painful circumstances of recent advances in science is that each one makes us know less than we thought we did. When I was young weall knew, or thought we knew, that a man consists of a soul and a body; that the body is in time and space, but the soul is in time only. Whetherthe soul survives death was a matter as to which opinions might differ, but that there is a soul was thought to be indubitable. As for the body, the plain man of course considered its existence self-evident, and so did the man of science, but the philosopher was apt to analyse it away after one fashion or another, reducing it usually to ideas in the mind of the man who had the body and anybody else who happened to notice him. The philosopher, however, was not taken seriously, and science remained comfortably materialistic,even in the hands of quite orthodox scientists.

Nowadays these fine old simplicities are lost: physicists assure usthat there is no such thing as matter, and psychologists assure us that there is no such thing as mind. This is an unprecedented occurrence. Whoever heard of a cobbler saying that there was no such thing as boots, or a tailor maintaining that all men are really naked? Yet that would have been no odder than what physicists and certain psychologists have been doing. To begin with the latter, some of them attempt to reduce everything that seems to be mental activity to an activity of the body. There are, however, various difficulties in the way of reducing mental activity to physical activity. I do not think we can yet say with any assurance whethe rthese difficulties are or are not insuperable. What we can say, on the basis of physics itself, is that what we have hither to called our bodyis really an elaborate scientific construction not corresponding to anyphysical reality. The modern would-be materialist thus finds himself ina curious position, for, while he may with a certain degree of success reduce the activities of the mind to those of the body, he cannot explain away the fact that the body itself is merely a convenient concept inventedby the mind. We find ourselves thus going round and round in a circle:mind is an emanation of body, and body is an invention of mind. Evidently this cannot be quite right, and we have to look for something that is neither mind nor body, out which both can spring.

Let us begin with the body. The plain man thinks that material objects must certainly exist, since they are evident to the senses. Whatever else may be doubted, it is certain that anything you can bump into must be real; this is the plain man's metaphysic. This is all very well, but the physicist comes along and shows that you never bump into anything: even when yo urun your hand along a stone wall, you do not really touch it. When you think you touch a thing, there are certain electrons and protons, forming part of your body, which are attracted and repelled by certain electrons and protons in the thing you think you are touching, but there is no actual contact. The electrons and protons in your body, becoming agitated by nearnessto the other electrons and protons are disturbed, and transmit a disturbancealong your nerves to the brain; the effect in the brain is what is necessary to your sensation of contact, and by suitable experiments this sensation can be made quite deceptive. The electrons and protons themselves, however, are only crude first approximations, a way of collecting into a bundle either trains of waves or the statistical probabilities of various different kinds of events. Thus matter has become altogether too ghostly to be usedas an adequate stick with which to beat the mind. Matter in motion, which used to seem so unquestionable, turns out to be a concept quite inadequate for the needs of physics.

Nevertheless modern science gives no indication whatever of the existence of the soul or mind as an entity; indeed the reasons for disbelieving init are very much of the same kind as the reasons for disbelieving in matter.Mind and matter were something like the lion and the unicorn fighting for the crown; the end of the battle is not the victory of one or the other, but the discovery that both are only heraldic inventions. The world consists of events, not of things that endure for a long time and have changing properties. Events can be collected into groups by their causal relations.If  the causal relations are of one sort, the resulting group of events may be called a physical object, and if the causal relations are of another sort, the resulting group may be called a mind. Any event that occurs insidea man's head will belong to groups of both kinds;

considered as belonging to a group of one kind, it is a constituent ofhis brain, and considered as belonging to a group of the other kind, itis a constituent of his mind.
Thus both mind and matter are merely convenient ways of organizing events. There can be no reason for supposing that either a piece of mindor a piece of matter is immortal. The sun is supposed to be losing matter at the rate of millions of tons a minute. The most essential characteristic of mind is memory, and there is no reason whatever to suppose that the memory associated with a given person survives that person's death. Indeed there is every reason to think the opposite, for memory is clearly connected with a certain kind of brain structure, and since this structure decays at death, there is every reason to suppose that memory also must cease. Although metaphysical materialism cannot be considered true, yet emotionally the world is pretty much the same as i would be if the materialists werein the right. I think the opponents of materialism have always been actuatedby two main desires: the first to prove that the mind is immortal, and the second to prove that the ultimate power in the universe is mental rather than physical. In both these respects, I think the materialists were in the right. Our desires, it is true, have considerable power on the earth's surface; the greater part of the land on this planet has a quite different aspect from that which it would have if men had not utilized it to extract food and wealth.

But our power is very strictly limited. We cannot at present do anything whatever to the sun or moon or even to the interior of the earth, and there is not the faintest reason to suppose that what happens in regions to which our power does not extend has any mental causes. That is to say, to put the matter in a nutshell, there is no reason to think that except on the earth's surface anything happens because somebody wishes it to happen. And since our power on the earth's surface is entirely dependent upon the sun, we could hardly realize any of our wishes if the sun grew could. It is of course rash to dogmatize as to what science may achievein the future. We may learn to prolong human existence longer than now seems possible, but if there is any truth in modern physics, more particularly in the second law of thermodynamics, we cannot hope that the human race will continue for ever. Some people may find this conclusion gloomy, but if we are honest with ourselves, we shall have to admit that what is going to happen many millions of years hence has no very great emotional interest for us here and now. And science, while it diminishes our cosmic pretensions, enormously increases our terrestrial comfort. That is why, in spite of the horror of the theologians, science has on the whole been tolerated.
 Back to top

.(μήνυμα)

On Sales Resistance  (1932)

Throughout recent years, a vast amount of money and time and brainshas been employed in overcoming sales resistance, i.e. in inducing unoffendingpersons to waste their money in purchasing objects which they had no desireto possess. It is characteristic of our age that this sort of thing isconsidered meritorious: lectures are given on salesmanship, and those whopossess the art are highly rewarded. Yet, if a moment's consideration isgiven to the matter, it is clear that the activity is a noxious one whichdoes more harm than good. Some hard-working professional man, for example,who has been saving up with a view to giving his family a pleasant summerholiday, is beset in a weak moment by a highly trained bandit who wantsto sell him a grand piano. He points out that that he has no room largeenough to house it, but the bandit shows that, by knocking down a bit ofwall, the tail of the piano can be made to project from the living roominto the best bedroom. Paterfamilias says that he and his wife do not playthe piano and his oldest daughter has only just begun to learn scales.``The very reason why you should buy my piano'' says the bandit. ``On ordinarypianos scales may be tiresome, but on mine they have all the depth of themost exquisite melody.'' The harassed householder mentions that he hasan engagement and cannot stay any longer. The bandit threatens to comeagain next day; so, in despair, the victim gives way and his children haveto forgo their seaside holiday, while his wife's complaints are a sauceto every meal throughout the summer.

In return for all this misery, the salesman has a mere commission andthe man whose piano is being sold obtains whatever percentage of the pricepresents his profits. Yet, both are thought to have deserved well of theircountry since their enterprise is supposed to be good for business.

All this topsy-turvydom is due to the fact that everything economicis looked upon from the standpoint of the producer rather than of the consumer.In former times, it was thought that bread is baked in order to be eaten;nowadays we think that it is eaten in order to be baked. When we spendmoney, we are expected to do so not with a view to our enjoyment of whatwe purchase but to enrich those who have manufactured it. Since the greatestof virtues is business skill and since skill is shown in making peoplebuy what they don't want rather than what they do, the man who is mostrespected is the one who has caused the most pain to purchasers. All thisis connected with a quite elementary mistake, namely, failure to realisethat what a man spends in one direction he has to save in another so thatbullying is not likely to increase his total expenditure. But partly alsoit is connected with the notion that a man's working hours are the onlyimportant part of his life and that what he does with the rest of his timeis unimportant unless it affects other men's working hours. A few clergymen,it is true, speak of the American home and the joys of family life, butthat is regarded merely as their professional talk, against whicha very considerable sales resistance has grown up. And so everything isdone for the sake of something else. We make money not in order to enjoywhat it provides but in order that in spending it we may enable othersto make money which they will spend in enabling yet others to make moneywhich.... But the end of this is bedlam.
 Back to top

.(μήνυμα)