Someone, I can’t recall who, sent me a link to this over a week ago before Fakegate exploded. I’ve had it open in my browser since. Published in 1951, it seems prescient as we look at the global warming affair today. These ten commandments would apply well to the “robust” science of global warming. I wonder if Mr. Gore appropriated #9 for his own use?
Bertrand Russell A Liberal Decalogue (1951)
Note
This Liberal Decalogue first appeared at the end of the article “The best answer to fanaticism: Liberalism” in the New York Times Magazine (16/December/1951). It was then included in The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, Vol. 3, 1944-1967.
It shows the usual sharp mind and tongue of Bertrand Russell, never more at ease as when presenting his unconventional ideas. From panarchy.org
Perhaps the essence of the Liberal outlook could be summed up in a new decalogue, not intended to replace the old one but only to supplement it. The Ten Commandments that, as a teacher, I should wish to promulgate, might be set forth as follows:
|
1.
|
Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
|
|
2.
|
Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.
|
|
3.
|
Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.
|
|
4.
|
When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavour to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.
|
|
5.
|
Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.
|
|
6.
|
Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.
|
|
7.
|
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
|
|
8.
|
Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent that in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.
|
|
9.
|
Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.
|
|
10.
|
Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness.
|
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Beautiful. I always suspected you of true Liberal tendencies, even if it seems a term of abuse for some of your commenters! 😉
What a beauty! Thanks so much for sharing it certainlt seems to resound well with today’s major issues
Excellent. This makes me proud of being a British lefty again. A feeling its been hard to maintain recently while discussing Gleick’s crimes with my fellow lefties on the Guardian.
We used to believe in ethics as a cause not a cause to justify no ethics.
Thank you for the reminder from history.
This is not funny.
This is dead serious.
Apparently the “liberal” of today is actually the real fanatic.
Awesome post!
Another good one from Russell which I came across recently. It seems to apply to many “climate scientists.”
Loved that! 🙂
“prescient” just does not seem to be an adequate comment in light of the Gleick affair..
It is interesting that this is labelled a A Liberal Decalogue given the (assumed) leanings in the climate debate.
I can see why you left this open throughout this turmoil. It directly addresses the current situation in an extraordinary prescient way. While he could not have known that such a perfect test case would materialise, the warmists had plenty of time to heed his advice. They didn’t and the chickens are now coming home to roost.
I like these statements but since I am not absolutely certain of them and have no respect for their authority what am I left with ….
The self contradiction of logical positivism sneaks into a lot of what Russel says.
“Have no respect for the authority of others…”
Never try this with a State Trooper!
obviously, “Liberal” meant something different back then…
Those ten commandments should be a poster in every classroom from junior high up world wide.
Not primary schools because little children should surely be learning the basics: how to read; how to write words and numbers; how to type; multiplication tables; basic arithmetic and geometry; general knowledge; basic grammar; spelling lists; etc. But after that …
I noted Russell’s ‘new’ decalogue was addressed to teachers, not to their students. As you observed, Anthony, prescient indeed. I wonder how many excellent young scientists’ careers will be ruined once this CAGW scam crashes against either the Scylla or Charybdis of ideological or political (fiscal?) reality.
The current situation is so sad because it is so unnecessessary. With goodwill the animosity and the circling-the-wagons mentality could have been minimized but there was none from the CAGW Keepers of the Faith: even to this day they insist their models are right and everybody else in the world is wrong.
So sad. So ridiculous.
I claim No 7 “It’s turtles all the way down”,/i>.
Or as my mother would have said, ”beware your sins will find you out”.
Be skeptical, be honest, don’t appeal to authority, don’t use power to oppress others in thought nor deed. Can’t say I know any liberals who align with the above commandments.
I’m not sure about #7. Some opinions, though eccentric, are just plain wrong. Other opinions, although not eccentric, have lasted eons and are no less true for that.
Thank you very much for posting this, Anthony. I have just been having a heated debate about liberalism with a friend on facebook, and was encouraged to see this here. Was it Russell who defined a sceptic as simply one who “withholds judgement”? Being open to new findings, not promoting absolute certainty about what is clearly incomplete knowledge, and finding pleasure in intelligent dissent. These are the things we need to strive for.
Rick
Wise words from before the end of the Age of Enlightenment 🙂
“1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.”
Russell must have occasionally regretted that. Wittgenstein was a student of his, and one day Russell asserted that there were no rhino’s in the classroom. Wittgenstein said he didn’t accept this assertion, so Russell went round the classroom looking under all the desks to see if any rhino’s were hiding there.
Russell knew 50 years early how climate scientists would feel when confronting “skeptics”.
Amen to that. Unfortunately posted on the wrong website – should be compulsory reading for warming absolutists.
It is worth pointing out for the benefit of contemporary American readers, that Bertrand Russel is using the word “liberal” in its true meaning, devoted to liberty, not in the way 20th century New Deal politics has debased it. “Libertarian” might be a close, if clumsy, substitute today.
I think that the Classical Liberals of the 19th century came into contact with the “scientific ” socialism or Marx, and transformed themselves into “Progressives”. They believe in making progress moving forward to a brave new world of reason. Not a bad aspiration, but unfortunately the rationality occasionally leads into policies (e.g., eugenics) that we have decided are not quite where we want to go. The enviro movement is another branch of this movement and it appeals to the desire of all of us to live in a clean (i.e., not polluted) environment. How could anyone argue with that concept?
What we have now is the progressives losing the argument about AGW on the basis of reason, so they turn to the alternative methods used by other “progressive” totalitarian govts of the 20th century, described very well in the Russell quote. They are frustrated that the world doesn’t work the way they think it should, so they do whatever it takes “to be effective”. Start with logic that uses data that supports your arguments, then try the carrot, then the nudge, pricing methods, and finally, the stick. See, e.g., alcohol and tobacco.
These are the people who are running our society, and controlling the MSM that informs us about them.
John Brookes says:
February 24, 2012 at 4:06 am
jonnyboy, this is how your future Prime Minister is is going to deal with AGW climate scientists.
PS: not all climate scientists are wrong.
🙂
The old definition of liberal always seemed to me to be of someone with a generous, tolerant outlook, open to dissent and discussion, much as that list implies. Virtually the opposite, in every respect, of the new American definition of liberal, which seems to me to be of someone of a narrow, intolerant outlook, riven with PC rather than thoughtfulness, and not at all interested in discussion (or rather they might use that word to describe their hectoring and determination to impose their views on others) since they are on a permanent crusade of some kind or another. Once that used to be on behalf of the workers, but now that they have been abandoned, it is on behalf of the even vaguer term, the environment, or for some group with a suitable grievance. People on crusades don’t have much time for talk (‘the time to act is now, the time for talk is over’, and suchlike), most especially if the talker is raising challenges to them.
Back in ’51, the term “Liberal” was describing what we now call “Classic Liberal”.
From Wikipedia:
“Classical liberalism is the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.”
In 2012, this is more of the US’s Conservative stance and seems to match up quite well with the Tea Party movement.
From the Tea Party website (theteaparty.net):
The Tea Party movement is a grassroots movement of millions of like-minded Americans from all backgrounds and political parties. Tea Party members share similar core principles supporting the United States Constitution as the Founders intended, such as:
• Limited federal government
• Individual freedoms
• Personal responsibility
• Free markets
• Returning political power to the states and the people
I believe the Libertarian Party also supports much of the “Classic Liberal” position, too.