Category: Bertrand Russell

Bertrand Russell, british philosopher, is one of the greatest philosophers of the twentieth century. He is both a brilliant mathematician, a logician and a resolut moralist. He popularized the philosophy and was a left-wing political militant , close to socialism. Bertrand Russell was also a prolific writer. His bibliography is impressive.

Throughout his life, Bertrand Russell has demonstrated an extraordinary lucidity and an implacable logic. He was, above all, a man who had the courage of his convictions. Not only was he a free thinker, but also a free speaker. What he thought, he said, even offend people and make enemies, which was, it seems, the last of his worries. His radical positions have also earned him two spells in prison. Bertrand Russell was not only controversial, but he loved the controversy. He never missed an opportunity to take a stand on many issues, which earned him many disappointments.

Some of his books show, however, a certain complacency. Because of this complacency that transpire throughout his autobiography, reading the three volumes I have been rather painful. For cons, the reading of several of his other books was very rewarding. Bertrand Russell was an aristocrat, imbued with himself, but possessed of a keen intelligence and highly developed critical thinking. We can not say that humility, tact, delicacy and diplomacy were his strengths. His attitude earned him the difficult relationship with his entourage. His autobiography mentions his strained relationship with his parents, friends, teachers and even his wives, because he divorced a few times.

Having been raised in a religious atmosphere stifling, the young Bertrand rebelled against religion and biblical texts, as a teenager. He put into question the existence of God, free will and the immortality of the soul. He became an atheist. What the revolt at the highest point, it was the crimes committed, especially against women, in the name of religion and biblical texts. Based on the Bible and the following: “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”, Pope Innocent VIII issued in 1494, a bull against witchcraft and appointed two inquisitors responsible for repression. The latter did appear, the same year a book entitled “Malheus Maleficarum,” or in French: “The Hammer of Malfaitrices” in which they claimed that witchcraft was more natural to women, because of the wickedness of their land heart. Between 1450 and 1550, an estimated one hundred thousand the number of women who were burned at the stake, in Germany alone.

It did not seem scruples in that time, nor the need to gather evidence, because the slightest denunciation became an automatic locking, poor women are subjected to the worst torture to extract confessions. The prosecution’s most crazy and most common was that of having caused the bad weather. According to the Church of the time, storms, storms, thunder and lightning were caused by women’s machinations. Those who dared to question the responsibility of women in bad weather, were exterminated without mercy.

The discovery of anesthetics was also an opportunity for intervention of the Church strongly opposed, especially for deliveries. She quoted the Bible where God told Eve that she give birth in pain. According to the Church, how could women give birth in pain if she was under the influence of anesthetics. By cons, there was anesthetized man, for ever according to the Bible, God had Adam plunged into a deep sleep to remove a rib.

Bertrand Russell wrote about religion: “The Christian religion was and still is the greatest enemy of moral progress in the world.” As for Islam, he wrote: “Among religions, Islam should be compared to Bolshevism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines, while Islam and Bolshevism have a practical purpose, social, material, whose sole purpose is to extend their dominion over the earth. ”

Bertrand Russell strongly opposed the participation of England in the First World War, which earned him the loss of his professorship at Cambridge University, and six months in prison. By cons, he did not object to the Second World War against Nazi Germany, believing that Hitler was a terrifying threat to humanity. He took position to Albert Einstein when he was violently attacked by the U.S. McCarthyites who accused him of being a communist. During the 1950s, he opposed nuclear weapons by signing a manifesto with Albert Einstein and hosting conferences. He was imprisoned for his views. He campaigned against the war in Vietnam with Jean-Paul Sartre, organizing a court trying war crimes in the U.S. Army. There was obviously a lot of enemies.

According to Bertrand Russell, there were many conflicts between science and religion throughout the history of humanity and science is always emerged victorious, because it was based on concrete evidence instead of relying on the illumination as did religion. When a man of science tells us the result of experience, it also tells us how the experiment was performed. If other people can repeat it, it holds for real. In terms of religion, we must rely on the vision of a mystic who believed himself invested with a divine mission to assert something without real proof. According to Bertrand Russell, it is useless to talk to the mystic who claims to have experienced enlightenment and who has strong beliefs, but why should we force others to believe as well?

A man of superior intelligence and logic as implacable as Bertrand Russell did not fail to bring out the incongruities and absurdities of a sacred text like the Bible. He deplored the crimes committed in the name of the Bible considered the word of God. To doubt the Bible, according to the Church was, to doubt the word of God and thus committing a sacrilege punishable by death.

One of the biggest conflicts between science and religion was unquestionably the position of the earth in the universe. On the basis of serious study, scientists such as Copernicus and Galileo came to the conclusion that the earth revolved around the sun. For its part, the Church, based on a text of the Bible in the Old Testament, where it says that Joshua commanded the sun to stop, came to the conclusion that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun, moon and stars revolved around the earth.

Surprisingly, it was the Protestant Christians who were the most bitter against the new astronomy. Luther said, “Some give ear to an upstart that astrology has sought to demonstrate that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. This fool wants to overturn the whole science of astrology, but the Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth.”

Galileo had to appear before the Inquisition, to bow before his judges and recant his writings, asking pardon of God and the Church for daring to say such nonsense. He was still sentenced to three years in prison.

Bertrand Russell, whose name shines like a star in the world of philosophy and literature, was a great British philosopher of the 20th century. He was a multi-dimensional personality and his repute had many aspects. He was a scientist, philosopher, mathematician and a humanist. His thoughts and works have left indelible imprints on the intellectual history of the modern world. With his keen and sensitive vision, he observed every aspect and every color of life and practically took part in the affairs of life to know human problems and their solution. He was a lover of humanity. He tried to make man ponder over his status and station, and budge from victimizing and perishing his own species.

Russell was an outstanding mathematician and his contribution in mathematics is a milestone in this field. His Principa Mathatica written in collaboration with White-head, printed in 1913, in three volumes is a landmark in the history of mathematics. This glorious work by him has granted him a noble status among the scientists and mathematicians of world. His deep interest and proficiency in science and mathematics developed a philosophic approach in his mind and he made a high-ranking philosopher of his time. He always insisted to solve all the enigmas and problems of life with the tool of logic. He relied on logic and believed that the light of logic could guide a person on all the paths of life.

Russell was a person who did not confine his feeling and endeavors to a certain field. He did not devote his life to the intricacies of science and complexities of mathematics. Rather he eyed the beauties of life and noticed the threats to this beauty. His mind studied the enigmas of science but his heart throbbed for the humans all around. It was his special inclination towards humanity that he came out of his scientific world to observe and feel the human problems. That is why he not only produced scientific work but also wrote on social, political, human, economic and moral issues of the modern world.

Russell was born with a scientific brain and human heart. He felt all the sentiments of life. According to him life was the unique phenomenon in the cosmos. He believed that universe was a collection of phenomena and among them life was most charming phenomenon. This most beautiful picture of the album of universe is vandalized and spoiled by the man himself. It is man who unnecessarily takes on his fellows. He commits blunders, makes excesses and slaughters his own fellow beings. His unwanted greed and lust leads to horrible wars, which swallow the human blood and engulf human flesh. So Russell appeals to the good nature of man to teach him not to harm others. They should not be enemy of each other. He wants to see this world a cradle of peace and love, in which man’s bosom is filled with love and affection, not hatred and venom for others.

Russell was strictly opposed to monarchy. He strongly flays on the monarchy system that binds humans in the chains of slavery. It is monarchy that humiliates and snatches the rights of humanity. At the same time, Russell also condemns the rule of church as it backs monarchy.

Being a philosopher, Russell does not believe in religion. In the history of Europe, the term humanism was introduced and propagated after Renaissance. He believed that humanism considered in the light of religion was limited and restricted. He defines humanism in a wider sense, without religious restrictions. According to him man is responsible for his good or bad deeds. There is no spiritual power to govern the human deeds. Russell strongly believes in reason and does not believe in some divine system to control human life.

Modern age is the age of democracy. Many countries of the world are running democratic system successfully. But, there is a presentiment that hostile nations may kick off war at any time. Russell believes that world is divided into groups based on race and creed. This difference has generated an antagonism among humans. In his book “New Hopes for a Changing World” he writes:

“One of the most obstinate and difficult of the problems to be resolved if a stable world government is to become possible is the hostility which is apt to arise between different races. When I speak of the races I mean genuine biological varieties of the human species, not the attitude of the Americans of English descent to the Red Indians was different from that of the English to the French, as is shown in the saying “The only good Red Indian is the Indian.

Again he writes about slave trades:

“There has been one of the most shameful chapters in the history of the nominally Christian nations. The horrors of the slave trade are familiar. The life of a slave might or might not be one of hardships. As a rule household slaves were fairly well treated, but plantation slaves were cruelly exploited. The slave trade was stopped at the beginning of nineteenth century and slavery was ended by the civil war. But the color population remained and remains subject to intolerable hardships, injustices and cruelties.”

At that time, the treatment meted out to Jews at the hands of Nazis was also outrageous. They were exterminated brutally, which was inhuman and condemnable.

According to Russell creed and ideology are two words with the same meaning. Ideology is the system of ideas characterizing a party, while creed is a system of beliefs. Russell finds no difference in ideology and creed. Mankind is divided into different groups and sections due to difference of ideologies. The different ideologies or beliefs have created an unwanted antagonism among human beings. The poison of disparate beliefs is lethal to humanity. When this poison enters the blood of humans, it deprives them of their good nature and drives them on the paths of bigotry and violence. The big wars and bloody clashes between different nations have been due to difference of creeds or ideologies. A big example is the war of Crusade between the Muslims and the Christians fought for a long time. In the 20th century, two great wars were fought due communism and capitalism, extermination humanity in a dreadful way. Russell felt deeply this large-scale destruction of humanity and condemned it strongly. He was a propagator of peace, he was preacher of fraternity, so he deplored the annihilation and emphasized tolerance, forbearance and harmony. In this way Russell proved himself as the apostle of peace and lover of humanity.

Russell always detested wars. He criticizes and denounces the hostile nations who find solace in taking up arms and going to battlefields to solve their problems. Violence breeds violence. A war gives way to other wars. We cannot find the solutions to problems in human assassination. Russell wanted to see peace and harmony prevailing all over the world. He detested wars and bloody clashes engulfing the humans savagely. He vehemently protested against British government when it joined war against Germany in the First World War. He came on front as pacifist but was caught and imprisoned by the government. But this imprisonment could not shake his resolve and commitment to humanity. He remained firm and did not succumb to any pressure or high handedness. He stuck to his ideas and maintained his point of view in the Second World War. To eliminate wars in the world forever he stressed on the presence of one super power in world. There must be a super state with no adversary. And it is possible if America overcomes Russia, or Russia topples the America to become supreme power in the world. However he prefers America on Russia because America is better state in every respect and has ability to rule the world. Russian domination shall drive the world into hell. He says:

“There are even more important reasons for preferring a victory of America. I am not contending that capitalism is better than communism. My reason for siding with America is that in that country there is more respect than in Russia for the things that I value in a civilized way of life. The things have in mind are such as freedom of thought, freedom of inquiry, freedom of discussion and human feeling. What a victory of Russia would mean is easily to be seen in Poland. There were flourishing Universities in Poland, containing men of great intellectual eminence. Some of these men, fortunately, escaped. The rest disappeared. Education is now reduced to learning the formula of Stalinist Orthodoxy.”

The above-described thoughts give an ample proof of Russell to be a strong believer of intellectual freedom. At the same time he is so firm in his favor of America that he holds right to use force against Russia by the Alliance powers of the free world.

In the Second World War, the mass destruction caused by atomic bombs was evident to the whole world. The unprecedented devastation caused by atomic devices shocked the whole human race. Russell strictly condemned this act, for which he had to suffer imprisonment. Again, in 1962, when nuclear war was to kick off between two super powers because of Cuba crisis, he played a memorable role as the world pioneer of peace. Through his convincing letter, written to the heads of both super powers, he succeeded to dissuade them from carrying out a horrible folly. He was able to convince them that nuclear war would annihilate mankind on a large scale on the planet and all the achievement attained by man would be wiped out. This glorious act of Russell grants him an unmatched glory of character. He appeared as prophet of peace and saved humanity from most horrible devastation. He appeared to be not only a prophet of peace but as benefactor of mankind too.

He showed the man a way to solve their problem without waging war. He proved that pen is more effective than a gun. He always diffused tension with his speech and fought against two worst enemies of humanity—- bigotry and narrow mindedness.

Russell’s intellectual vision was fairly wide. He was convinced of the nobility of man. He said that man was the noblest creation and he was the real beauty of the universe. But this cosmos is infinite and our earth is just a speck in this huge system. The life appeared on the earth due to favorable environment. Earth was situated at a great distance from the sun. The small heat reaching to earth from sun is conducive to life. The sun is source of energy to earth. If we cross O zone or go deep into the earth, life again becomes impossible. Earth is dependant on sun the gets energy and heat from it. If sun goes cold, life on earth will freeze. So life is subject to suitable environment and circumstances like other things, which cannot survive in non-favorable conditions. Russell negates the old traditional dogma that man is the center of Universe. Planets in the universe are countless like the specks of sand in a desert. Our earth is such a speck.

Russell wants man to crash out his self-styled shell of self and ego. He wants him to abandon self-glorification and cast a rational look on life and its wants. The idol of ego and self-centeredness has parted man from man. To bring men closer to men it calls for to leave obnoxious ethnic, racial and geographical prejudice.

Russell has praised the fortitude and stoicism of Boethius who wrote his great book “The Consolation of Philosophy” in the days of his imprisonment. In his writing he adopted a style, which had a majestic grandeur mingled with sweet reasonableness. He wrote the anthology with such nonchalance and content, as he was still a powerful prime minister. He described the pleasure of contemplation; the delight of world beauty and hopes of mankind, which did not, left him. Boethius had been in public administration but won a disfavor due to which he was sentenced to death. He was sure to be executed yet he did not loose courage. He completed his great book in jail, which according to Russell is more useful in the present age.

Russell did not believe in religion. He was strictly against dogmatism. His deep scientific knowledge and high philosophic approach had given him a mindset to dispel traditional dogmas, which had been adopted by superstitious and narrow-minded people. In his “Unpopular Essays” under “An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish,” he expresses his repulsion for the follies of man. He is not ready to admit the fact that man is a rational animal. Rather, in the light of his own experiences, he says:

“Through a long life I have looked diligently for evidence in favor of this statement, but so for I have not had the good fortune to come across it.”

On the other side he says that he has seen great nation and formerly leaders of civilized nations, who were led astray by nonsensical declamatory speeches. Further, he says that he has sensed the bitterness and pain of cruelty, persecution and the follies superstition. All these ills are growing rapidly which is deplorable.

Russell regards the Age of Faith as the age of ignorance as the illogical and absurd teachings. They burnt many thousand hags alive for their deeds repugnant to Christianity. It was surprising for Russell to see men punished for their sins through calamities and famines. The narrow minded Clergy and their followers rejected every new discovery and invention as it was contrary to their faith. The Greek research that the earth is round was rejected due to the presence of antipodes. It was sacrilegious to believe that there were men at the antipodes. Again, when Benjamin Franklin invented the lightening rod, the Clergy both in England and America condemned it as a wicked attempt to defeat the will of God. Clergy believed that lightening is the tool of God to punish the sinners, however, the whip of lightening is not for the pious. There for Benjamin Franklin was not justified to be against the will of God. For a long time people has been sacrificing their children to avoid the anger of Maloch, the god of sacrifice, which was strictly against the canons of humanity.

All these foolish and cruel acts, which were fruits of superstition and dogmatism, have tortured and damaged human civilization greatly. Russell vehemently condemns such dogmas, some of which are still prevalent. If man sticks to such superstitious beliefs and does not discards such irrational practices, he can never attain the absolute happiness and contentment.

Russell tells us that the best way of getting rid of the folly of dogmatism is to be well aware of the opinions rampant in social circles, different from your own and try to know their logical truth. Travel can bring you closer to the people and help diminish the intensity of prejudice. If traveling is not possible than make a liaison with the people with whom you disagree or read the newspaper belonging to the party you dislike. Using this way you can broaden you outlook. For the people who are psychologically imaginative, it is good to make an imaginary argument with a person having a different point of view. The great Hindu leader of India, Mahatma Gandhi was opposed to railways, steamboats and machinery. If you fell into an imaginary discussion with Gandhi, you can easily judge his viewpoint. Again to judge the conviction of your own arguments you can imagine what Gandhi might have said to negate you views.

The orthodox object to cremation as it burns the spiritless human body, which is to be reborn on the judgment day. This objection indicates an insufficient faith in the omnipotence of God. It was thought to be difficult for God to recreate a burnt body on the judgment day in its real shape. This thought touches the boundaries of blasphemy. Russell regards this objection as ridiculous and baseless. He contends if God created a human body with most complicated systems, He can rebuilt the burnt body and infuse psyche into it on the judgment day without a pinch of difficulty. To doubt the powers of God is nothing but a blasphemy.

The church was against the dissection of corpse to view the intricate body systems as it was for the study of medicine. Vesalims, the court physician was the pioneer of dissection. He was an accomplished physician and his medical skill protected the emperor against bodily ailments. But after the emperor’s death, he was sentenced to pilgrimage to the Holy Land, by the church.

Till the 18th century, the cause of insanity was attributed to devil. The only way to get rid of this ill was to beat the devil so that to beat the patient. So the persecuted the devil, (the patient) was beaten savagely. But sometimes, this treatment did not work and the patient had to suffer without any rhyme and reason. This treatment was given to King George III, who was insane, but was not cured at all. In that age, the fallacies and discrimination of race and blood were common. The Nazis had adopted them as their creed. But all these were self-created myths. According to Russell there was no pure race in the world. In America, the colored races are considered inferior to the others in respect of intelligence. But those who measure intelligence are unable to know the reality of distinction.

Russell also discovered the causes of superstition. It is actually the influence of great fear, which makes the men superstitious. The sailors, who threw Jonah overboard, took his presence on boat as the cause of storm. When Maloch demanded the children of aristocrats to sacrifice to him, the Carthaginians deceived him by offering the children of lower strata for the sacrifice. This annoyed Maloch and he inflicted defeat on them. However they did not change their way and never offered their own children for the sacrifice. As a result they again met defeat at the hands of Romans.

When fear prevails over masses, they become nervous and disturbed and do anything to get rid of this fear. Fear generates the impulse of cruelty and they justify every nonsensical and fierce thing to discard this fear. This is actually superstition. During the French revolution people went desperate and it gave way to absurd cruelties in the beginning. Had this revolution met less hostility from outside, it would have been less fierce. So we can sum up that the human history has been full of intellectual rubbish. Russel, throughout his life, struggled to eliminate such follies from human mind. So he indicated the hidden causes of dogmas analyzed them on psychological basis with absolute ability.

Imagine you are in the room and you see the things over their like window, bed, table, flower vase and such other things and you have your own perception about all that things and maybe the person after you come in the room see all the same things but with a different point of view then you. To be more specific we choose a table in the room and to be seen visually it will look a hard table with brown color and when one will touch it feels smooth but hard at the same time and when one gone hit the table with the hand it will give the wooden sound. All people will agree with these properties of the table but when one will describe the table more precisely then the confusion arises. (Russell 5). As the table looks brown but it is not brown all over at some parts it reflects the light and at some parts the color is bright and if you change your position it will change the reflection so the color of the table, therefore, two people cannot see the same color at two different positions. There is a difference between what one person sees at a particular time and what is the reality of that thing. The thing is not only changed by color but the shape too as we change our location the shape of the table is also changing. (Russell 5). If we see it from far it will look small and from very closely it will look big and with naked eyes, it will look smooth but if we see it with a microscope the shape is not smooth but we see many up and down so, we cannot trust what we see even through a microscope or a naked eye. The touch of the table is also different and it will depend on how much force we applied when we touch the table thus the sound is also varying with a force we hit the table the sound will be as loud as the large force we hit the table. “Whenever we see a color, we have a sensation of the color, but the color itself is a sense-datum, not a sensation.” (Russell 7). It means what we see not the thing but the memory the thing that we had in our mind which reflects the thing that we see and makes the shape, color, and such other things of the thing to be visible.

“It is plain that if we are to know anything about the table, it must be by means of the sense-data -brown color, oblong shape, smoothness, etc. — which we associate with the table; but, for the reasons which have been given, we cannot say that the table is the sense-data, or even that the sense-data are directly properties of the table.” (Russell 7). This is the definition given by the philosopher Bertrand Russell who do not believe in what we see but focuses on our sensation toward things. As in the whole above example of the table, one can define the sense data as a part of metaphysics which has different properties as it is private and cannot be shared publicly as one cannot show what he sees as they cannot share same position and the sense data is constantly changing with the change of time and place (Schmor). The sense data is indexed by spatial location & time and cannot by similar to anything in the universe. From all the above explanation one can understand why Russell perceive sense data and then infer the existence of physical objects because sense data can explain the nature of the object better as compared to the physical object. (Schmor). In the physical object we see the appearance of the object that one can see and feel through one point but the sense data is the reality behind the appearance of the object that will show the lawlike patterns of the objects. There is some principle that helps to relate the sense data to the physical object and also show and reflects the properties of the object by using the appearance and reality of the object related to sense data and physical object. The main reason behind posting sense data over the physical object by Russell is that because one cannot describe the physical objects and their properties without including the sense data to it as described in the example of the table as one cannot describe how the table look, what’s the color of the table at a different location, what sound it makes when it hits with different forces and such other things which is described with the use of sense data.

To the opposite of Russell’s point of view Philips who was a professor of philosophy who claims that there is nothing known as sense data and he says that the only thing, that matter is the physical object as it is the only thing that will help to know about the thing. He supports his claim by giving an example of an apple. Philips says that “If I am imagining an apple, my experience makes no contact with a real apple, the very access which seems to be denied by me.” (Phillips 80). In these lines, he argues that one cannot imagine a thing or sense a thing without in real life seeing the thing. In my point of view, Philips is not clear about his viewpoint as he does not describe the theory properly. As in Russel’s theory he does not says that one can see the thing without actually seeing it through sense data but he says that sense data plays an important role to describe an object that we see and describing the properties of the object.

Russel’s point of view toward sense data is reasonable as he gives examples to prove his point while Philip’s point of view is not that clear as I cannot understand what he wants to say in his theory and most of the part is off the topic and he do not talk about the importance of the physical object and the reason not to believe in sense data.one can describe the importance of sense data with the help of the example of illusion effect in the desert. When one person is traveling in the desert he got the illusion that there is water nearby and when he goes over that place there is no water but sand all around. If we apply Philip’s theory then that cannot be possible as there is no physical object so that is not real but a fake thing but the person sees that water illusion because he is in the desert for long time and due to heat and because he is thirsty his mind made him to see that illusion of water which can be best described by Russell’s theory of sense data as in sense data the thing is not the only one which can be seen through naked eyes or can be touched but also all the things which can be felt through your mind and can observe through sensation.

In the last one can say that Phillip is unable to prove his theory with an example but on the other hand Russell not only describes his theory but also prove it with examples. I think one cannot describe things only by seeing them or touching them but all that thing is described by the sensation that we got from that object which we called as sense-data or one can say Russell’s sense theory.

Work Cited

1. Schmor, Kent “The Problems of Philosophy” PHIL 205, Columbia College. Received Winter 2019. Course handout.
2. Schmor, Kent “What Can I Know?” PHIL 205, Columbia College. Received Winter 2019. Course handout.
3. Schmor, Kent. “Phil 205: Week 4: Metaphysics.” Philosophy 205, Feb. 8, 2020, Winter 2020, Columbia College. Microsoft PowerPoint Presentation.

Analysing controversy: All that I know I must know because I derived it from my sense

Introduction

This essay aims to examine the controversy i.e., “All that I know I must know because I derived it from my senses” by relating it further to the perspectives of Bertrand Russell (supporter) and Rene Descartes (opposition). By reviewing both sides of this controversy, a logical and rational explanation could be founded which is also the aim of this essay. Any controversy could be kept under scrutiny by reviewing both perspectives thereby allowing in having a better insight of the situation.

Critical analysis and discussion

Section 1

Russell has presented very unique and realistic imagery of the controversy by suggesting that “what the senses immediately tell us is not the truth about the object as it is apart from us” (p. 59). The statement presented by Russell is crucial to understanding the various social institutes and social behaviour of the people.

For instance, a person might view another individual who appears to be from a certain religion as a threat to his safety. This would be the first response i.e., derived from his senses. Upon analysing the situation and relating it further to the actual behaviour of the individual, he may come to a conclusion that the person is not a threat but the initial response was merely subjective.

Therefore, Russell’s presentation of the response further relates to the ‘power of asking questions. He also signifies the importance of evidence that surrounds the sensory response which could further assist in answering the questions or relating the issue further to the sensory response. Therefore, according to Russell, the controversy could be negated in a way that the sensory response of an individual is not evidence-based and is more like a reaction which does not hold a lot of meaning or importance.

Russell further adds up by suggesting that asking questions about a matter allows in going to the depth of it thereby allowing the person to know about the existence of another possible explanation. In simple words, there could be a logical explanation to the things that surround us (Russell, 2003, p. 1-2). By relating this notion further to the controversy, it could be implied that the senses may not always be true and ought to be challenged as well as cross-checked in order to reach out to the root cause of the situation.

Section 2

Rene Descartes takes this controversy to another level which opposes their viewpoint of Russell. He states “All this seems to be so evident as to be hardly worth stating, except in answer to a man who doubts whether I know anything” (p. 58). Therefore, Descartes is of the view that anything that has been deciphered by an individual could be negated and contested by any other person. This is primarily due to the fact that all individuals have their own way of interpreting things besides looking at them which allows them to decode the situation as per their own ways of looking at them.

Descartes is also establishing an argument that anything being experienced or viewed by someone could not be validated by another person for the reason that the other person does not hold a similar amount of knowledge or experiences. When this point of view is further related to the controversy selected for analysis, it could be put forward that Descartes does not look at it the same way.

According to Descartes, some people would be able to derive their thoughts from their sensations while others may not do the same. These differences that exist could be both important and unimportant at the same time depending on the way of looking at them.

Descartes further relates the argument to ‘appearance’ and ‘reality’. Therefore, reality may appear as different to the sensory response of an individual. His statement “I think, therefore I am” (Lockhart, 2019) holds a lot of significance in further deciphering this controversy.

In addition to that, he also talks about the experiences shaping the perception of things which further suggests that the controversy could be regarded as questionable as per Descartes’s frame of reference. It would also not be wrong to imply that Descartes’s view could be used to negate any controversy.

Section 3

In light of both the perspectives that have been analysed so far, it could be put forward that Russell’s explanation of the controversy was much stronger than Descartes’s. The reason behind stating this verdict is primarily due to the fact that Russell talked more about the objective or the logical explanation of the sensory response. Moreover, his argument related to questioning the matter allows the person to go deeper into the reality of a situation.

When this notion is further connected to the controversy that is under analysis, it would not be wrong to imply that the controversy itself is questioned by Russell’s point of view. For instance, the sensory response could be questioned that had earlier been explained with an example. It could be any other situation in which the sensory response might be too subtle or abrupt and the person may start rationalising the situation by asking more questions. Eventually, it would lead the individual to go into the root cause of the problem which would help in validating or negating the sensory response of the situation.

In addition to that, questioning or examining the objective element of any situation is a very useful strategy that could be adopted under any circumstances other than the controversy itself. By collecting evidence and data against the sensory response, an individual is able to redefine or add up further to the sensory response. One such example that could be linked here is following a rightful leader. The follower may think of a person as charismatic at first by looking at the leader’s looks or communication skills. However, with time, he/she could further analyse the leader by reviewing his works and his actions as to whether or not they are associated with one another. This is how the situation could be examined and validated.

Conclusion

Upon examining the controversy and relating it further to the two points of view, there are various aspects that could be unravelled. It could be implied that reviewing two sides of a situation allows in critically analysing the situation besides coming up with a rational outcome or a suggestion. In this case, Russell presented a more logical explanation of the situation as compared to Descartes which assisted in a better analysis of the selected controversy. In conclusion, any controversy could be deciphered from any frame of reference depending on the logic that has been put forward by the philosopher.

References

1. Lockhart, D. (2019). The Appearance of Presencing Individuals
2. Russell, B. (2003). Russell on Metaphysics: Selections from the writings of Bertrand Russell. Routledge.

This was an entry made in the International Journal of Ethics, Vol. 25 No. 2 in January 1915 by a renowned British philosopher, writer, political activist, mathematician, and social critic Bertrand Russell OM FRS. It had been six months since World War 1 had broken out when the article was published. Being a pacifist himself, Russell wrote this article addressing not only Britain but the whole world, convincing them that war cannot be justified and is not the way for any country or any race to achieve happiness and peace. Reminding the reader that ethics can only be understood when feelings are present, clarified, and methodized. Russell uses pathos to invoke sympathy and uses assumption-based logic and tonal variation, however, his argument tends to change the course of the main theme and consulates the reader.

Russel divided his article into parts, each one being a reason for why war is considered unjustified under not all but many circumstances. He dissects these reasons systematically and in detail. His article not only appeals to the common man but to all the classes of men on both sides of the war. He relates the present events with the past for emphasizing on how times have changed, thus the meaning and effects of war have also altered.

Russel gained sympathy from an audience who were still in shock and baffled due to the events of a global war. Publishing this article in such a perilous and intricate period about the war was an act of gallantry. He presents his reasoning for his beliefs through explaining the different causes and effects of war. In his article, he blames the common man too and writes in the third person using ‘we’ through which he includes himself as one of the culprits. And so making it easier for people to relate to his point and not seeing him as a self-righteous philosopher. He uses an appeal to emotion by the use of imagery. His aim is to invoke sympathy in the hearts of people for those suffering from the brutal consequences of war whether they are from the opposing combatant or their homeland. For instance: “An overcrowded family, living in a slum in conditions of filth and immorality, where half the children die from ignorance of hygiene and bad sanitation, and the remainder grow up stunted and ignorant–such a family can hardly make progress mentally or spiritually, except through an improvement in its economic condition”(3).

He signifies ‘hate’ as the root cause of all evil. “Hatred, by a tragic delusion, perpetuates the very evils from which it springs”(3). He displays how hate and horror compel men in such a large number to break through the chains of sanity and inflict violence in any direction they are maneuvered towards by mentioning the sufferings of Germany. This makes the reader fearful for their own future. Providing international socialism as the one and only rational choice among all others and embedding assumptions in the reader’s mind that other options will eventually lead to violence makes the reader put strenuous effort into thinking for a better future and thus makes them hopeless. It also develops a sense of weight for the issue. And so through the use of metaphor and connotative words and phrases, Russel is able to play with the emotions of almost every class of men of every nation engaged in the war.

Russell has mostly used an aggressive tone in the essay which he supports till the end with unapologetic sarcasm. However, his tone seems to vary along the length of the essay as he touches on different aspects surrounding the issue He criticizes the powerful men, who go on making international treaties, in a sardonic tone demeaning the point of view of all so-called political powers of the world. This forces the reader to consider the higher class authority false. When describing different types of wars he opts for a calmer tone since the issue in the following citation is controversial. Russel, while talking about Wars of Colonization, argues,

”Such wars are totally devoid of technical justification and are apt to be more ruthless than any other war. Nevertheless, if we are to judge by results, we cannot regret that such wars have taken place. They have the merit, often quite fallaciously claimed for all wars, of leading in the main to the survival of the fittest, and it is chiefly through such wars that the civilized portion of the world has been extended from the neighborhood of the Mediterranean to the greater part of the earth’s surface” (4).

Over here Russel deals with a harsh argument delicately so it is easier for the reader to grasp his argument with an open mind. Gradually Russel starts to shift his tone to a more critical one. He talks about what would happen in the far future if Germany was to be defeated, this arises a sense of fear and distraught for the reader as he tries to explain the consequences of inflicting brutality on the Germans today. And so the reader is compelled to think of war as the greater evil. “Whatever the outcome of the war, this nation [Germany] will still exist at the end of it, and its strength cannot be permanently impaired”(5). Russell’s use of analogy in the following citation gives the reader a sense of how important the thinking style of people matters in these modern times. He states,

” But the imagination in what pertains to war is still dominated by Homer and the Old Testament; men who cannot see that circumstances have changed since those works were composed are called “practical” men and are said to be free from illusions. Those, on the other hand, who have some understanding of the modern world, and some capacity for freeing their minds from the influence of phrases, are called dreamy idealists, Utopians, traitors, and friends of every country but their own.”

This statement comprised of sarcastic and comparative style makes the reader realize how people have been categorized due to the differences in their mindsets. And compels the reader to think with an open mind about other nations and classes. His use of literary devices such as diction helps to develop his unique yet varying style.

The use of kairos is stretched along the article by using current events to back up the writer’s reasoning. He provides credible historic events and has cleverly linked them with the present ones he mentioned and with his premise evolving a sense of urgency among the reader’s mind about the current war. Along with all the facts he gives his own assumption about what the future holds for us if this war was to continue in an old-fashioned way in a modern world. Russel states” What I do wish to dispute is the belief not infrequently entertained in England that if the Allies are victorious democracy can be forced upon a reluctant Germany as part of the conditions of peace”(6). Here Russel mentions a possible outcome of the current condition of Germany and continues in the article about its menacing outcomes in the far future thus having an apprehensive impact on the reader’s mind. And so by the use of historic and present events he manages to present his dialect in such a manner that is comprehensible for the majority.

However, Russel’s organization of ideas in this argument seems to enmesh the reader’s thoughts and feelings on this matter. Russel seems to deviate a bit from his main thesis which causes uneasiness and skepticism in the readers’ minds about the author and his argument. This happens when he talks about the war of colonization in the past being justified. Another point that Russel mentions might cause many readers to go against him as he talks about white people already having occupied most important parts of the world and yellow and white people holding power in the other states. This exhibits a mild essence of white supremacy in his argument. And so he might lose the support of readers of other ethnicities. Although he does stress upon the fact that “there should be a very great and undeniable difference between the civilization of the colonizers and that of the dispossessed natives”(4), arguing that in the past there might have been times when war was necessary for human civilization and so still remains intact to his original stance giving the reader a logical explanation about his view. And by adding mildly offensive phrases attacking people of a different class, race and nation he was able to collect even more support for his beliefs and argument since this showcased that he is unbiased and so his argument is valid and easier for the majority to digest.

“The Ethics of War” was an argumentative article comprising of Russell’s main point of view and beliefs about the issue which he successfully exhibited in the length of the article. He manipulated his readers by keeping them on their toes emotionally through the thorough use of the tools of pathos. Similarly, his logical explanations along with reliable proofs made it easier for the reader to accept Russell’s point of view. Furthermore, Russell wrote while varying his tone according to the minor aspects of his article with such liquidity that it made the reader understand his concepts in a flow. To conclude, Russell effectively convinces his readers: whatever the reason may be that a war’s outcome cannot outweigh the pain and suffering it inflicts on the world in modern times.

Paraphrasing of “A Brief History of Time”

In Stephen Hawking’s book A Brief History of Time, the first three chapters are primarily used to garner interest from the reader in the awesome scientific investigation of the cosmos and modern physics. This is done through the use of historical relevance and an explanation of where current theories of the universe originated or was adapted from. The first chapter discusses the famous turtle conversation had by Bertrand Russell and a member of his lecture audience. The second chapter discusses the origination of the geocentric and heliocentric theories of the solar system during the early stages of the application of the scientific method. The third chapter discusses the importance of understanding relativity, special relativity, and quantum mechanics when investigating the extreme secrets of the laws of physics.

The first chapter of A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking introduces the reader to the realism and mystical wonder behind a garnered interest in studying and exploring the cosmos. This book is meant to hook the reader with what makes science- and therefore Hawking’s book- so important and captivating. This is done by first introducing an anecdote that Hawking credits to Bertrand Russell about the fundamental understanding of the universe. Hawking describes an interaction that is said to have occurred between Russell and an old lady in his audience; The lecture Russell was giving involved astronomy and how the earth orbits around the sun and is a small stellar unit that makes up even a galaxy in the cosmos. The old lady says to Bertrand Russell that what he is saying to them is “rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant turtle.” When Russel asks what the turtle is standing on, the old lady quips “You’re very clever […] But it’s turtles all the way down!” This gives the wild conceptual thought loop of how bizarre and unrealistic the old lady’s response about the world being on the back of a turtle seems in the modern age. Sure there may be conclusive evidence that the world is not flat and lying on the back of a tower of turtles, but this does not mean it was never appropriate to consider all possibilities- no matter how bizarre they may seem at first. Hawking then goes on to discuss how when one gazes up at the night sky, the wonderment and infinite expanse of the cosmos should make any person reconsider the certainty of everything they know. The fact that Alpha Centauri is the closest star to Earth and would take roughly 10,000 light years to reach displays to the audience how far away and massive the stars and observable universe are. The end of this chapter is used primarily to introduce the concept of light-years being a time-dependent measurement that is used to measure vast distances in space. (Hawking, pg. 6-7)

In the second chapter of A Brief History of Time, Hawking opens by setting historical reference points for the audience, such as the Christopher Columbus voyage and how at this time there were still people who believed the Earth was flat. However, the roots of astronomy as a scientific discipline has roots tracing back to the Ancient Greeks in 340 B.C. through Aristotle’s book On the Heavens. There was another argument emerging relating to the earth being round. This was evidenced by ships and their sails as they appear on the horizon. Since an image rises up, instead of appearing as a whole image becoming bigger, this gives credence to the claim that the earth is a sphere due to the ball of the ship’s mast being the first thing to appear. These early astronomers also performed rigorously, yet fundamentally crucial and accurate, mappings of the stars in the night sky. The Greeks noticed that the stars all seemed to move together as if the sky as a whole was shifting. But there were 5 or so “Wanderers” in the sky that would later be identified as the other planets in the solar system. Aristotle believed that the Earth was stationary, and the sun, planets, stars, and the moon orbited around the earth- known as the geocentric theory, which would be mostly unchallenged for several centuries still. Ptolemy’s model had earth in the center with 8 heavenly bodies/spheres orbiting it. It wouldn’t be until 1514 that Nicolaus Copernicus would help argue for a heliocentric theory; a theory with the sun being the universal point of centralized orbit. Johannes Kepler could then use this information and model to study the elliptical motions of the planets and thus would lead to Galileo using all of these foundations to advocate so heavily for the heliocentric theory that he would be excommunicated from the Church. Newton then would establish the universal understanding of elementary forces and support all of the previous claims of Kepler, Galileo, and Copernicus with concrete mathematical models, equations, and predictions being ascertained. (Hawking, pg 8-11).

In the third chapter, “The Nature of a Scientific Theory”, Hawking explains what comprises a good scientific theory, plus a look into theories scientists of today have come up with, in addition to a future goal for them. According to Hawking, a good theory should portray a large class of perceptions based on a model consisting of a few simple components and include a precise foreshadowing of future findings. It is stated that today, scientists have bound the universe to be depicted in two incomplete theories, those being the theory of relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics. The theory of relativity explains the force of gravity from a large-scale perspective while quantum mechanics focuses on a much smaller scale, thus they contradict one another. Nevertheless, it is the ultimate goal for scientists to come up with a complete and definite single theory to describe the entire universe, for it is longed for us humans to have justification for why we’re here and where it is we come from. (12-15)

As it has been shown through rigorous discussion of the first three chapters of A Brief History of Time, it can be seen the ethos, pathos, and logos used by Hawking to convey complex matters of the universe to a wide audience. The first chapter discusses the importance of understanding different perceptions and points of view in astrophysical studies. The second chapter discusses the rise and evolution of the heliocentric and geocentric theories of the universe. The third chapter discusses the pertinent role quantum mechanics and relativity play in unlocking the deeper mechanisms of the observable universe.

Throughout the earth’s existence humanity has questioned the validity of God’s presence. In the Judeo-Christian religion, there are numerous stories in the Old and New Testament dedicated to enhancing our relationship with God. In both Testaments, God reveals Himself to His followers and shows them how to live a life of faith. These biblical stories help teach humanity to comprehend what religion is and how it relates to our inner self. To question a personal belief with God is not wrong and in the end, it may lead a certain individual to form a closer relationship with Him.

William Irwin’s God is a Question, Not an Answer, and Bertrand Russell’s Is There a God? challenges a believer’s an atheist’s uncertainty about their faith. According to Irwin and Russell’s passages, humanity continues to debate over the existence of God because there is no concrete definition of religion and no physical evidence to prove if God is real. William Irwin begins his passage with Albert Camus’s existentialist novel The Stranger, the protagonist character Meursault, is an atheist who claims God is not his life and rejects visitation from a Catholic priest the night before his execution. Irwin then focuses on a novel written 70 years later by Kamal Daoud, his novel continues Camus’s story. In Dauod’s novel, a character declares “God is a question, not an answer”, this character’s statement resonated with Irwin and now he argues that uncertainty is a popular trait amongst humanity and it is quite common for believers and nonbelievers to question their faith and relationship with God. Irwin says, “any honest atheist must admit that he has his doubts, that occasionally he thinks he might be wrong, that there could be a God after all – if not the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition then a God of some kind” (Irwin 1).

Irwin also writes, “The believer should concede that she does not know with certainty that God exists. There is no faith without a doubt” (Irwin 2). He believes that it is okay for believers and atheists to question their doubt in whether there is a God or not, he says that by living in a state of doubt and uncertainty leads individuals to an honest view of their relationship with the God of their choosing. Irwin mentions Bertrand Russell, who is a nonbeliever in religion, Russell was asked what he would say to God if they met during judgment in Heaven, Russell responded with God gave humanity insufficient evidence to believe that He was real. God does not reveal himself easily to humanity, if he did people would not doubt His presence. Irwin believes there are two types of doubts, a “doubt of indifference” or a “doubt of desire.” A doubt of indifference is to simply a lack of interest in something and a doubt of desire is a certain way of thinking and feeling, it is the desire to ask questions with the hope that a higher power can answer them and provide meaning to humanity.

Nonbelievers tend to favor scientific theories, like evolution and the Big Bang to explain how the earth was formed and where humanity came from. Believers rely on their faith to explain the unanswered discoveries of the world. When an individual doubts their faith it can either strengthen or weaken their personal opinion but whether the individual is a believer or nonbeliever their mind has to be open to accepting the fact that humanity may never know if there is a God or not. British philosopher and atheist Bertrand Russell like Irwin believes that God means something different for every individual and community. Russell questions whether there is one true God and if His intentions with humanity are pure. He says, “…Omnipotent Creator, than that Creator, so far from being loving and kind, as we are told, must be a degree of wickedness scarcely conceivable. A man who commits murder is considered to be a bad man. An Omnipotent Deity, if there is one, murders everybody” (Russell 547). He believes that God must be a wicked individual since he afflicts humanity with cancers and diseases that kill men, women, and children. If God exists and choices which members of society He will torture and kill with disease and slavery humanity cannot look upon Him witch such high graces.

Russell mentions a theory by Plato, he believes Christians are being called to a more Modernist form of theism, where God is not considered to be all-knowing and He does not have the ability to control everything that happens on earth, for example, wind, water, and gravity. Russell also likes Irwin and believes that people spend more time trying to disprove theories rather than try to prove them. He says, “Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of skeptics to disprove received dogmas rather than dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake” (Russell 547). He creates a teapot analogy to discuss the existence of God and His effect on society. Russell wants his readers to imagine a China teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars. Since the teapot is too tiny for human eyes to see there is no way to prove that the teapot is floating throughout space, we have to assume it is there. Russell argues that the burden of proof is on the person who is claiming the teapot is in space, the person needs to provide evidence that the teapot exists in space in order for society to believe him. Using the teapot analogy Russell claims that since we cannot prove that God is real, society should not believe in Him unless provided evidence that He does exist. History tells us that throughout humanity people have believed in either the traditional Christian God or multiple Gods. Both Irwin and Russell’s articles state that having doubt in religion is common. Irwin believes that an individual can be a believer or a nonbeliever it us up to the person to decide what religion means to them. Russell believes that the burden of proof is placed on the atheist community to explain why followers of God should reject His preaching and accept Atheism as the truth of the world.

The manifestation of war in a society evokes mixed reactions and effects among individuals. War affects the lives of many innocent people within the nation, as illustrated by various studies. When individuals go to war, their lives are at stake, and some do not come out alive. Bertrand Russell wrote an engaging text on the future of man amid the increased conflicts. In his philosophy, Russell highlights the historical development of the hydrogen bomb, which is a 1000 times superior to the once feared atomic bomb. An example of a battle that claimed many lives of people in the world history is the civil war. The fight between the north and south claimed numerous lives, leaving many injured and paralyzed. Most of those who remain hurt are family and friends who care for such individuals. Studies indicate that most individuals who are affected when war occurs are usually innocent. A man who goes to war leaves those who care for him in a worried state as anything can happen to him. Those who participate in war are human beings prone to injuries or death in the process. The thought of death of a participant in war scares friends and family. A manifestation of war in the community affects individuals in the sense that it leads to death, leaves many injured, homelessness, destruction of property, and derailed economic development, among others. The text “Thermonuclear War: the Death Wish of Mankind. Has Man a Future?” mentions how people can innovatively develop weapons that can cause death but do not necessarily use them.

Most nations that have developed nuclear weapons have failed to use them on several occasions for fear of the consequences that may befall the earth. The paper aims to analyze critical texts that contribute to the topic of war and conflict. A background check on issues of war and its impacts on society is a subject of interest to the research. Findings from the research will be used to develop a formidable conclusion regarding the occurrence of war in the community. The article is a historical representation of a more significant issue that looms upon the manifestation of war in the society. “Dulce et Decorum Est”, a poem by Wilfred Owen, echoes the sentiments raised by Bertrand Russell in his work. The poem is an example of literary work that protests against any mentality that perpetuates war within a community.

The poem was written during the World War I on the western front in France. The author highlights the horrors of war in the society, especially to those who are innocent. Owen, in his work, depicts soldiers trudging through the unsanitary trenches with injuries and fatigue. One should not give up during war, which risks the lives of the already tired or injured soldiers. The poem illustrates the events as they happen during the war and the risk that soldiers are put through. The author of the poem argues that if one sees an individual in war, then they would not advocate for war as it has fatal consequences. The poem speaks in the position of a young man who takes part in a war and narrates the occurrences and tries to make the audience create a picture of war. The poetic work is relevant and educative as it downplays any efforts and actions that glorify war. The glorification of war has had many consequences, including loss of lives. “War”, by Luigi Pirandello, is a relevant text that applies narrative principles to communicate the effects that are associated with participation in war. The author of the article mentions a case where a married couple boards a train to Sulmona from Rome. The husband consoles the wife, who is crying because their son had been called to war.

Unknowingly, many people on the train have suffered worse than the couple. According to the text, some had lost their sons in the war, and the couple should be grateful for their son is still alive. To some, war is a matter that happens from time to time, and there is a need to appreciate the country by sacrificing when the need arises. Fellow passengers on the train are undergoing similar situations to the extent of some losing their sons. In the article, the author has illustrated the theme of patriotism as it matters, especially during times of war. The fact that his son had decided to die for the country makes the author realize that others have also sacrificed to help the society win the war.

Some decisions that many make in life are based on making sacrifices and the level of patriotism exhibited. Bertrand Russell gave his views on war, echoing the work done by other protagonist researchers. The logic behind his narrative is to discourage war and termed it as unnecessary in the society, for it leads to destruction. In his work, the book was written in protest of the expected nuclear war within ten years, which would be catastrophic to the world. The text notes with concern that there is a need to devise an international government that oversees operations of national governments. Just like most people who predict the future, Russell proved to be wrong as the war did not occur in eventuality. His work protests against encouraging war or participating in a war. The author advocated for the disarmament of nuclear weapons to ensure that they are not used as most leaders cannot be entrusted. His observation on the morality of war and weaponry is still factual in the current world. His work is interesting since an intelligent person can be thrilling without necessarily being right. “The Soldier” by Rupert Brook opposes the views to discourage war in the world. The sonnet in the poem glorifies England in war.

For instance, in the first stanza, the sonnet mentions how his grave should be like when he dies at war. The poem echoes patriotism in a bid to explain why one should sacrifice and die for England. To the author, war cannot be avoided, and the role of men is to face it as a hero. Rupert Brooke’s glorified the role of war in society in proving one’s patriotism. The author illustrates his interest in participating in war and how respectable it is to his reputation. Rupert Brooke is one philosopher who did poetic work glorifying the occurrence of war, which is against the views of Bertrand Russell. The poem was composed shortly in the year 1915, after World War I had started. The work done by Rupert is illustrative of his idealistic nature and principle. To the author, patriots who take part in war have a special place, a matter that is based on misguided notions. Rupert ignores the consequences of war in society and assumes gratification for dying at war. Unlike Owen and Bertrand, the poet who communicates in the first person adores war and condemns cowardice when handling matters to do with war. The poet echoes his origin as an important place in England that shaped his literary skills.

The disadvantage of the position taken by Rupert Brooke is that it encourages war, which is associated with bloodshed and death of people in a community. Ethically, war is not desirable as it impacts most sectors of the economy negatively. For instance, costs that are incurred in treating those injured can be directed to assist a vulnerable population or carry out other projects. Military treatment costs are high, and avoiding war can help reduce the financial implication that is associated. War in a community should be discouraged, and mutual coexistence fostered to promote peace. To many, war is a factor that has claimed lives, leaving many as widows and orphans.

For instance, Bertrand Russell protests against war and the use of nuclear weapons as they have dire consequences to the population. Rupert is more of a conservative person who values war as a way of earning a reputation in the society. A manifestation of war has many disadvantages that should have prompted Rupert to conclude otherwise. War has consequences that should encourage any to avoid war and make peace with everyone in society. Bertrand Russell recognized patriotism but does not encourage one to exhibit their loyalty through a war. The logic behind the decision to discourage war is based on negative impacts associated with a war within the society. An acceptable code of conduct internationally does not advocate for war as people end up losing their lives. Instead, it advocates for mutual existence and fair justification of circumstances, with due respect for all. Authors such as Rupert should be made to understand that war can derail economic development and loss of lives. The advantage of the position is that with a protest against war, people in society are safer. A manifestation of war distorts peaceful co-existence resulting in conflicts that can attract injuries and death. Also, campaigns against war promote sustainability in almost every sector of the economy.

To sum it up, war has many negative impacts on society, including hurting those who are innocent. War leads to instability, deaths, injuries, and destruction of property, which can be avoided by fostering peace initiatives. I support the views of Bertrand and Owen, which discourage war as an enemy of economic development. Nations that have avoided war for right or wrong reasons enjoy better economic regimes as compared to those that plunge into a war more often. Authors play a key role in shaping opinions within the society. As such, there is a need to encourage good practices within the society peace fosters economic development and improved international relations for various countries. Also, avoiding war can help reduce the number of casualties and deaths that are recorded daily on a global front. The text by Russell illustrates a scenario where war has been portrayed as a significant contributor to sabotaging growth and development, especially among developing countries.