Understanding History: And Other Essays

by Bertrand Russell

Originally written in 1943 and published in 1957 by Philosophical Library, Inc, these vigorous essays from one of the most distinguished minds of our time reveal several facets of the English philosopher’s thought. The title piece exposes the deadliness of the academic approach to the past, and shows how the reading of history can be a vivid intellectual pleasure.

In “The Value of Free Thought,” Russell once again proves himself a ruthless foe of stifling orthodoxy and a fearless champion of free thought, free action and free speech. Then in a series of articles on a subject near to his heart, he explores the effect of atomic physics on such philosophic concepts as materialism, idealism, determinism and faith. In short, here is a complete banquet of provocative ideas—wise and witty; skeptical and profound—to whet the appetite of every discriminating reader.

Genres: Philosophy, History, Nonfiction, Essays

112 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1957

About the author

Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS, was a Welsh philosopher, historian, logician, mathematician, advocate for social reform, pacifist, and prominent rationalist. Although he was usually regarded as English, as he spent the majority of his life in England, he was born in Wales, where he also died.

He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought."

Reviews

[Maxine · Rating 3 out of 5]

Understanding History & Other Essays is a short book containing several essays by the 20th c. philosopher, Bertrand Russell. They vary in length and subject matter and some are of more interest than others. Understanding History, the title essay is perhaps the best known and the one I will concentrate on in this review. In it, he makes it clear that his interest is not as an historian but as someone who loves the subject:

My subject is history as a pleasure, as an agreeable and profitable way of spending leisure as an exacting world may permit

For Russell, history can be divided into two types: history in the large and history in the small

History in the large helps us to understand how the world developed into what it is; history in the small makes us know interesting men and women, and promotes a knowledge of human nature

Russell seems to give little credence to history in the large which he claims is

actuated by a desire to demonstrate some “philosophy” of history; they think they have discovered some formula according to which human events develop

It is history of the small that Russell seems to consider the proper purpose of history- the story of great men of genius who, according to him, are responsible for progress. And it is clear that, when he talks about men of genius he means men and mostly men of western civilization. Women and people of other civilizations factor little in his history and, when they do, not favourably.

Written in 1943, this essay gives an interesting account of what one of the most prominent philosophers of the first half of the 20th c thought about history and its study. His attitudes about women and race are, perhaps surprisingly (or maybe not) not that unusual for the time period.

There have been criticism of this essay that it clearly demonstrates Russell’s belief in Eugenics. That he did is also perhaps not surprising given the influence of Eugenics on the ‘great men of genius’ of the times whether in science, education, or government including fascist governments. It was one of the prevailing ‘scientific’ theories of the early 20th c., influencing not only the Nazis but Margaret Singer and her philosophy of planned parenthood and the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment among other things and Russell, despite his own genius, was a product of his time. It should be noted that, in later years, he would become a vocal critic of Eugenics.

It has always been my understanding of history that it is, at its most basic level, the recorded account of mankind’s past or, to quote Edward Hallet Carr, it is ‘a dialogue between the present and the past’. It is, simply put, the story of us since we first put stylus to papyrus and said ‘we were here’. As such, I am not sure I would recommend Understanding History as an introduction to understanding history; I would, however, recommend it to anyone interested to understand the attitudes of the time towards race and gender as espoused by one of the greatest men of genius of the time.

[Walter Polashenski · Rating 3 out of 5]

Probably closer to 3.5. It’s fascinating when I can feel as contrary as this to someone whose beliefs I almost entirely share

[Christopher Rush · Rating 1 out of 5]

Oh, heavens. This is just me talking, but was there truly a time when Mr. Russell's philosophical meanderings were taken seriously? Yes, I know there was such a time, but we have traveled out of those dark times, yes? He was a great mathematical thinker, don't get me wrong, but when he travels out of his wheelhouse, what the ancients would call his metier, he embarrasses all concerned. He does have a few trenchant observations scattered higgledy-piggledy, but their efficacy is overshadowed by the towers of palaver flanking them several paragraphs deep. I could continue to mix metaphors about this wholly disappointing diatribe against Christianity (we get it, Bertrand, we get it - you think all modes of intellect built upon non-scientifically verified presuppositions are garbage ... except your own), but frankly, even though I'm nothing and Bertrand Russell is all that and a bag of some British crisps, it is not worth an extended review. You've either read it by now, are planning on reading it because you already agree with Bertrand Russell, or are going to avoid it because you know all you need to know about Bertrand "Why I'm Not a Christian" Russell. Fair enough. I'll just conclude with me own brief ramblings.

The first section on "history" was a rambling who knows what, mostly little tidbits that may or may not be true, since Russell cites no sources and supports no arguments, only battens us continually with notion of how the pre-Enlightenment way of looking at things is wrong and we're great and religion is awful and the usual. He comes down against Nazism and Communism a bit (as he does throughout the collection), but neither of them are as detrimental to humanity as Christianity. Maybe you agree, and certainly history is chock full of anecdotes of people who have intentionally done bad things in the guise of Christianity, and even though we and they themselves knew it wasn't authentic Biblical Christianity, people such as Mr. Russell take a deeply-felt erotic glee over using them as "proof" for the wrongness of Christianity. Again and again and more frequently.

The middle bit about How Lovely It Is to Think For Oneself (or whatever its actual title) is an undisguised diatribe against Christianity, but we all knew that going in to it, since that is what he does at every opportunity. In gist, if you are affiliated with an organization that prevents its denizenry from scrutinizing the organization's principles, values, behaviors, and choices, your ability to think freely is being hindered and thus it's wrong wrong wrong. No kidding. We got that from Athens, the bedrock of thought and freedom that put Socrates to death because he was getting people to think. Maybe the situation back in the 1940s was different and such, and as E.R. Dodds reminds us, in times of war the People in Control are huge fans of conformity and boats unrocked, but my experience with Christianity has never been a "don't think just nod and believe" religion. Or perhaps I should say it is not a "don't move don't talk out of time don't think don't worry everything's just fine" religion. Russell says it is. Maybe mid-twentieth-century Anglicanism and Catholicism were such for him, and perhaps he is right about that. I can say from my own experience it's not that for me, so we will forever disagree, and that's enough about section B. (Two.)

The last filler dealy-bib was a brief attempt at explaining science and it's totally forgettable aside from the fact it is the only essay in this collection in which Russell does not distract himself with erroneous "religion is bad except my own atheistic infatuation with the religion of science."

It's Bertrand Russell. That's probably all that needed to be said.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A COLLECTION OF ESSAYS

Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872-1970) was an influential British philosopher, logician, mathematician, and political activist. In 1950, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, in recognition of his many books.

This 1957 publication contains two longer essays: “How to Read and Understand History,” and “The Value of Free Thought,” as well as a series of very brief (i.e., 1-2 pages each) essays under the general topic, “Mentalism vs. Materialism.”

In the essay on history, he begins with the statement, “It is not history as a subject of academic instruction that I wish to write… My subject is history as a pleasure, as an agreeable and profitable way of spending such leisure as an exacting world may permit… My purpose is to try to say what I have derived from history, and what many others, I am convinced, could derive without aiming at becoming specialists.” (Pg. 9)

He observes, “As soon as you know the general outline of history of some period, it becomes agreeable and profitable to read the letters and memoirs of the time. Not only do they contain much intimate detail which makes it possible to realize that the men concerned really lived, but there is the advantage that the writers did not know what was going to happen, as the historians do.” (Pg. 26)

He suggests, “the [historical] material is so vast, and selection is necessary. Selection must be guided, at least in part, by a sense of values… some men must be studied because of their influence… But even then standards are necessary if the history of culture is to be studied with any profit; we must not indiscriminately admire whoever has been influential, for is we do we may find ourselves worshipping Satan. The ultimate value of culture is to suggest standards of good and evil… and this should be remembered in all our study of culture in the past and in the present.” (Pg. 41)

In the essay on Free Thought, he notes, “Some men argue that the question whether religious dogmas are true or false is unimportant; the important thing, they say, is that these beliefs are comforting… There is to my mind something pusillanimous and sniveling about this point of view, which makes me scarcely able to consider it with patience. To refuse to face facts merely because they are unpleasant is considered the mark of a weak character, except in the sphere of religion. I do not see how it can be ignoble to yield to the tyranny of fear in all ordinary terrestrial matters, but noble and virtuous to do exactly the same thing when God and the future life are concerned.” (Pg. 69-70)

He criticizes William James’s “Will to Believe”: “The virtue of veracity does not consist in believing all sorts of things at a venture, on the off chance that they may happen to be true. No one would for a moment take this point of view except as regards religion. Suppose I get into conversation with a stranger, am I to believe that his name is Wilkinson on the ground that, if it is, I shall be believing truly, whereas if I admit that I do yet not know his name I forfeit the chance of a true belief?” (Pg. 71)

He rejects the “Best of all possible worlds” scenario of Leibniz: “It is exactly equally possible that the world was created by a wholly malicious devil, who allowed a certain amount of good in order to increase the sum of evil. Let us suppose his ethical valuations to be entirely orthodox, but his will to be towards what is bad. He would agree with the theologians in thinking sin the greatest of evils, and would perceive that sin is impossible without free will. He would therefore create things possessed of free will, in spite of the fact that free will made virtue impossible. He would be consoled, however, by the foreknowledge that virtue would be very rare. And so this actual world, which he created, is the worst of all possible worlds, although it contains some things that are good.” (Pg. 83-84)

Russell’s clear, thought-provoking, and witty writing style are clearly illustrated in this collection of essays, and this will be of great interest to anyone interested in his philosophy.

[Peter Garay · Rating 4 out of 5]

In turbulent times such as those of our modern era, it is always helpful to look back at the past and read what the outspoken critics who addressed similar societal struggles--namely, dogmatism, social conformity, and institutional authority. Although Russell has been gone for many years, his critiques and arguments remain relevant and offer valuable insights.

In this set of essays, Russell urges his readers to understand the importance of history by understanding the past, valuing free thought, and challenging the assumptions of modern day science and consciousness. While Nietzsche and writers such as Thomas Carlyle argued for a "Great Man of History" a review of the past shows us that it is rather a mixture of political, social, and economic conditions that allow for great men to exist. One must question the accuracy of one's history due to the nationalistic, moralistic, and selective story telling. In order to clearly understand history, one must be detached, resist the urge to impose present day values when evaluating the past, and be skeptical of the promises provided to us by the "prophets" of history (e.g., Karl Marx, GWF Hegel, etc.). In reviewing history, we should learn it not to indoctrinate the populace, but rather to cultivate humility (i.e. showing how often people and nations are led astray), toleration (e.g. the diverse variety of human customs and beliefs), and skepticism of authority.

Moreover, "The value of free thought" offers us much to consider. Above all, free thought should be seen as both a moral and intellectual virtue. One's beliefs should be formed independently of tradition, authority, and social pressure. Orthodoxy punishes innovation--a truth that is present not just with Socrates, Galileo, Copernicus, etc., but even in modern times (e.g., Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in Russia). A freethinker must be willing to be wrong and change their mind when presented with further information. Unfortunately, present-day educational systems often promote conformity and obedience rather than fostering independent thinking. To cultivate true independence, we must resist the impulse to believe something because it is comforting, critically examine arguments from both sides before forming a conclusion, and be wary of social consensus or traditions that go unquestioned.

The final essay explores fundamental philosophical debates about the nature of reality and consciousness focusing on the contrasting views of Materialists and Mentalists (ie. Idealists). The latter argues that reality is mental and all that exists are minds and ideas; while the former focuses on emphasizing the physical and the idea that mental phenomena can be reduced to brain states and physical processes. Where a materialist fails to account for a conscious experience, the mentalist fails to account for the predictability and stability of the external world. In order to preserve the subjective reality of what it means to be human, and the objective reality of the world, Russell argues for Neutral Monism--mental and physical events are aspects of the same reality. They are merely different patterns of arrangement and not necessarily different substances.

Overall, I found these essays to be thought provoking and insightful. Russell’s commitment to reason and intellectual humility offers a timeless model for independent thought. I would recommend this book to anyone seeking to think more critically and live more thoughtfully.

[Ali · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first essay in this book was absolutely fascinating. Russell goes over the importance of history in teaching us about societies, individuals, and human nature. He explains how to read an enjoy history as an amatuer rather than a professional, and what lessons you can get the most of it. He goes briefly over some important (or sometimes small/trivial) historical events - since the beginning of civilization - and what we can learn from them; I particularly liked his view on the role the individual plays in history and his criticism of the Marxist view that undermines the role the individual plays in producing change or progress throughout history; also his point of how studying of societies should not be thought of as the studying of astrology for instance since we need to consider human emotions is thought-provoking. I believe that he is correct in his observation that we cannot set rules for history but rather just hypotheses (which can be useful). The second essay is a little bit boring - though the first part where he advocates for rational and critical thinking is important and worth reading (what he said might be considered common sense but I knew a lot of people who openly say they believe in something because it comforts them not because they rationally believe it) it spends too much ranting about religion and its dogmas (like okay, we get it) but his views on rational thinking and the relationship of tyranny/dictatorship to ignorance and irrational beliefs are intriguing because it tell us something of how dictatorship work by keeping the general population ignorant, busy, and too occupied with problems to think about philosophy, politics, and the society they live in. This idea is not limited to dictatorships but is also used in democracies as well where people usually do not think way too beyond their basic needs. The last essay was somewhat disappointing because it did not explain the ideas of materialism and idealism (or mentalism as he calls it) in a more simplified way than I expected - but it might still serve as a good introduction to the topic. The essay - like all of Russell's writings - is written in plain and simple language and explanation which anyone can understand with a touch of wittiness and sarcasm that makes it both easy and enjoyable to read.

[Nils · Rating 2 out of 5]

A breezy but mediocre little meditation composed amidst WWII, published in 1957. Seems as if he composed it as a stemwinder, and although some of his observations are reasonable you can tell they are more geared towards the bon mot than toward original insight. And his future orientation is very off. By the time it was actually published it was quite out of date already, and from the 2025 perspective it is very off.

[Richie Arvidson]

Short, seems like a transcription of a lecture. Idea of times of creative explosion as societies vascillate between restrictive/permissive. Scholasticism gives way to the renaissance, but too permissive of culture gives way to degeneracy/breakdown, gives way to restrictive culture. And so on. Usual dunking on religion and ideology. 1957?

[B Malley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Really liked the first essay! Russell's frequent sarcasm charmed me. The second essay, eh - it's hard not to look at Russell's talk of physics through the 21st century lens. Looking forward to exploring other works by Russell in the future.

[David Akin · Rating 1 out of 5]

A bit of a rather creaky antiquity to a reader in 2020. Many other things Russell is famous for. Not this.

[Carolyn · Rating 3 out of 5]

Russell's definition of a free thinker should give anyone pause for thought. While at times the book seemed to 'ramble', if read slowly and thoughtfully, it proved to be enlightening. Due to the age of the book, some of the historical examples were dated, but this only seemed to reinforce the thesis Russell was presenting.