Understanding Bertrand Russell: “Those who fear death are those who fear love”
Russell uses his Analytic Philosophy to give a more comprehensive and logical definition of love. This chapter will give you a quick overview of Bertrand Russell’s philosophy on love.
The concept of love has been formulated ever since man began to think. Socrates was an ancient philosopher who said that love is a permanent possession of good. Socrates modified his definition in the symposium of ‘perpetual ownership’ of Good. To love beauty means to desire to be beautiful. Possessing it would mean to create it infinitely. Therefore, love is by its nature the love for immortality and beauty. So, love and reproduction go hand in hand. The desire to reproduce is a manifestation of love, as it’s the nearest thing to immortality. Our children are precious to us because we can share the future with them. A love for immortality, or fame, is what drives heroes to sacrifice. The love of the philosopher brings him to as near immortality as he can get. In a sense, the immortality is assured when we look at absolute beauty without fetters. We might never create a masterpiece, nor have any children. It is true that the philosopher has a supreme achievement. He will become immortal, as only a human being can. In constant harmony with the divine orders of the universe, the philosopher will recreate that order within his soul. He will become as godlike as possible, though there will always be room for deviation. (Plato, 1941, p. 208)
In Phaedrus as well, the quest for absolute beauty or good is viewed in terms of the problems the soul faces to become immortal. Plato argues that, according to his dualistic view of the human condition, the soul itself is immortal. The soul descends to nature and is enclosed by a material shell. In its initial state, the soul lived with the gods in the world of eternal forms. When souls become human, they tend to forget where they came from. Immersion into matter dulls the awareness that their source is spiritual. All men still secretly yearn for that state of wholeness. The soul, though it may be confused, wants to return to the realm of essences. This includes that absolute beauty or good which shines in the world of the senses but is only truly enjoyed within its own domain.
Plato’s conception of human nature is that it is two-fold, composed of a body and a soul. Each part has its own opposing impulses. Both parts of the human body and soul are driven by love but for different objects. Body is led down by sensual temptations. The soul is seeking upwards to its eternal home. The soul is concerned only with excellence through a pure spiritual relationship. Human nature is more inclined to be swayed by the lure of flesh. In the Symposia, love often appears serene and calm. Like Socrates character or the orderly approach to absolute beauty. It is so turbulent in the Phaedrus that it has earned its title of ‘divine Madness’. Insanity can lead to madness. It can also be a divine inspiration that frees the soul of all conventions and customs, just as it is with all other creative inspiration. True love can be described as a madness, and this is something that we all desire. The enlightened mind seems to lose balance when it finally releases itself from its degrading and pervasive body. It is actually a return to freedom and sanity. The soul is stirred by beauty when it appears in front of its lover.
Plato vividly describes what happens when someone sees a person who is beautiful. At first there’s a shudder, then awe, then reverence. If he weren’t afraid of being called a crazy man, he might even sacrifice his beloved to a god-like image. Plato (Plato 1937, page 225). We can interpret the response as a homosexual reaction, but this isn’t what Plato intended. He explains the growth of the soul through emotion. This adoration for Platonism marks the start of love. By allowing him to be taken over by the Good, the true love ascends the ladder. The lover will then gain knowledge of the truth.
Concept of lifeIn Meaning in Live: An Analytical study (Metz 2013), I aim to present a novel theory on what makes human life meaningful. My goal is to show that this theory is better justified than other competing theories found in analytic philosophy literature over the past century or so. This project is bound to have some limitations. I do not consider what might be a meaningful life for the entire human race. Instead, I concentrate on what the individual means to them. In evaluating the theories of meaning that a person might have, I use fundamental principles to try and capture what they all share. I therefore do not discuss particularists, phenomenologists, strictly personal or other philosophical perspectives. As I focus primarily on analytic philosophical texts, that is, those written in English, in the Anglo American tradition, and not those written in continental or East Asian traditions, I will not discuss these in detail. In focusing primarily on philosophical texts, I do not consider how other research fields, such as psychology and religion, might reveal something.
Meaning in Life was a good place to begin. With such a narrow focus, there were many authors, ideas and works that I could explore. The Journal of Philosophy of Life’s special issue on Meaning in Life contains about half of contributions that have chosen to stick to the project parameters. They employ the same lens I use, but look at things differently. This includes the works of Peter Baumann, David Matheson Jason Poettcker Yu Urata Hasko vom Kriegstein Nicholas Waghorn Mark Wells Fumitake Yushizawa. The Journal of Philosophy of Life’s special issue was primarily intended to encourage reflection on issues of meaning using a new lens. Christopher Ketcham’s, Minao Kekita’s, Masahiro Morita’s, James Tartaglia’s and Sho Yaguchi’s contributions, which all fall under the East Asian tradition, are characterized by this kind of approach. iii In most cases, these critics claim not only that their lenses are different and deserve to be used along with mine, they also say that they are better and that should be replaced. In my response, I assert that this stronger viewpoint is implausible. They offer, at most, a lens to supplement mine, not replace it. I do not support the critics’ claim, which is that the only way to approach meaning-related issues is through a theoretical-analytical method. I’m a pluralist when it comes to methodology at this point in my thinking. I believe that it can be helpful to see meaning through different lenses.
I give a brief overview of Meaning in Life’s three major sections, highlighting just enough of them to help you understand the rich discussion that follows. This special journal issue has advanced meaning-related reflection in some very interesting and profound ways. My book’s contribution to knowledge is both an honor and a source of great pride. In the first section of Meaning in Life, I attempt to analyze meaningfulness in order to provide a neutral analysis of competing theories on what meaningfulness is in terms of how it manifests itself in a person’s daily life. I will define the meaning of the phrase “meaning” in Anglo-American Philosophy, identify the value that this term represents, and distinguish meaningfulness, as subjectively construed, from happiness. In terms of definitions, I believe that the family resemblance, pluralist model is best at this time.
This view holds that the “meaning of life” can be defined by ideas such as purpose, transcendence, appropriateness of feelings such as admiration, esteem and narrative properties. The literature is rich with these theories, but no single idea can encompass everything. I then consider what a meaningful life looks like, or what a meaningless life looks like. Is the meaning of life a pattern, the individual parts, or both? I end up in favor of this mixed view. There are two dimensions of meaning to life: a part of someone’s life during a particular time period, such as an action, a project or a stage in their life (e.g. adolescence), and the entire life of that person. In order to make an accurate judgment about the meaning of a life and compare it with other people’s lives, you must add up both dimensions. I focus on their differences in part one. I contrast meaning and pleasure in terms of six value-theoretical aspects, including: how the bearers of the values can benefit from luck, what attitudes they should adopt, and their logical sources.
I conclude that a good life can be associated with a positive one. Happiness and meaning are two different goods, each of which can make a life worth living. In the second and third major sections of the book, my focus is on analyzing and evaluating the various theories of meaning in life, the basic accounts that describe what all the conditions that make up a meaningful life share. I evaluate theories mostly in terms on how well they reflect and explain key concepts in Anglo American philosopher literature, especially when they pertain to the importance of the good and true (knowledge or wisdom), as well as the beautiful and artistic (art). I then criticize the superstitious theories of life’s meaning. These are those that hold God or a spirit (or even both) as necessary for it to be meaningful. I devote a lot of time to the most popular version of supernaturalism that says that a person can only find meaning in life by fulfilling God’s will. I argue against the arguments made in favour of the theory of purpose and offer a new reason for doubting it.
This argument holds that for God to be required to give meaning to our lives, he would need to be qualitatively higher and different than anything else that can exist in nature. He would also have to possess properties like simplicity and atemporality. These are properties that seem to conflict with the idea of a purposeful agency which is essentially complex, temporal and amoral. I offer arguments against all supernaturalism and not just the purposeful version. It is a very original argument that many who hold to supernaturalism are holding views in conflict with one another. They claim that they know some lives are meaningful, yet they don’t claim that they know anything supernatural like God or souls exist. Although they may believe in God or a soul, this does not prove their existence.
I argue that in the third part, Meaning in Life, a new naturalist view is presented that improves existing naturalist views, which are the general notion that a life in an essentially physical world can be meaningful. I begin by presenting counter-examples of various naturalist viewpoints, such as those that claim a life has meaning only if it’s creative, leads to long-term benefits, is perfectionist in nature, or is connected with organic unity beyond itself. Then, I present my favourite view of the moment, the fundamentality thesis, which roughly states that a person’s life is meaningful if they exercise reason in an intelligent, sophisticated manner and focus on basic conditions that underlie human existence. This is what explains or explains much else. The same way that H2O (hydrogen) is fundamental to water (see Metz, 2015), certain aspects of the human experience are fundamental, i.e. they account for a large part of their various dimensions. In the same way that space-time is fundamental to our environment, light and gravity are to our development as a species. We also know that communication, socialization, labour and practical reasoning are to a society.
According to my theory, the greatest meaning comes from engaging positively with these “deep” aspects of human existence. This can be a combination of learning more about these aspects, protecting them from harm and expressing our respect. The fundamentality thesis is not perfect in its current form. It is still my opinion that the fundamentality theory provides the best basis for future thought. It is more accurate than its literary rivals and captures intuitions on the centrality of meaning in terms of the good. Concept of Life as LoveLove is not just sexual pleasure. It is the primary means to escape the loneliness most people experience in their lifetimes. The fear of the world is deep-seated in many people. This fear is often disguised by rudeness and bullying behaviour in men or by nagging behavior in women. While it is still going on, passionate love between two people can put an end to the fear. It will break down all the walls in the ego resulting in a brand new being.
Russell’s belief about love supports the statement that those who fear living are three-quarters already dead. The three passions he was referring to were the three things that make up our life. Three simple passions but with a powerful impact. First, the passion for love is what explains how we want to be loved. The soul was also included in this passion, as it is believed to be responsible of all human emotions. Next, we were driven by our love of knowledge and our desire to learn. Our mind was also responsible for our decisions and our uncontrollable compassion for mankind’s suffering. This passion is a combination of our mind, body and soul. It’s responsible for everything we do.
Arthur Schopenhauer, a philosopher of his time, was a very well-known figure. Bertrand Russell’s philosophy on love was influenced by his view that the ultimate goal of any love intrigue, no matter how comical or tragic it may be, is of greater importance than anything else in life. The thought is that, regardless of whether love has a positive impact on your life or a negative one, love still allows you to grasp the essence and meaning of your existence. His connections helped him in one case but not in the other. Love was a motivator for him, and he saw it as such. In his writings, he influenced Freudian ideas of the id. Aristotle believed love to be an integral part of human life.
Aristotle believes that a perfected soul has no limitations and is capable of reaching anything. A prison is what limits a perfected soul. The soul is the main reason we exist and why we live. It is clear that to find true love, one has to live and have the intelligence to risk entering another’s world and being a part while leaving their own.
