Philosophical scepticism and political conversation
In his essay, Philosophy and Politics, Russell's
object is to consider the relationship of different
philosophies to different political systems, and to
inquire how far it is a valid relationship. Most
philosophy, says Russell, has been a reaction against
scepticism, though there have been exceptions.
The most notable exceptions were Protagoras in
antiquity and Hume in modern times. Both these
men were sceptics, and, as a result of scepticism,
were politically conservative. They believed that
nothing should be done to weaken the popular force
of tradition. Then there was Hobbes who, though
less sceptical than Hume, was equally convinced
that government was not of divine origin and who
advocated the path of extreme conservatism.
Empiricist - Den Writus and Locke
But thorough-going sceptics, such as Protagoras
and Hume, have never been influential. The really
powerful opponents against whom Plato in ancient
times and Hegel in modern times had to contend
were not sceptics but empiricists. These empiricists
were Democritus in ancient times and Locke in
modern times.
Plato's political philosophy : Totalitarianism, and
Static perfection
Plato was of the opinion that all the books of
Democritus should be burnt. Democritus was a
materialist, a determinist, a free thinker, a utilitarian
who disliked all strong passions, a believer in
evolution both astrbnomical and biological. He was
also an ardent democrat. He was of the view that
poverty in a democracy was better than prosperity
under despotism. Plato, who opposed the ideas of
Democritus, was a man of totalitarian views as we
clearly see from his book, the Republic. This book is
totalitarian in its political teaching and it advocates
an ideal of static perfection. But this ideal of static
perfection is now generally believed to be
inapplicable to human affairs. Man is a restless
animal, not content with the same state however
satisfactory it might be. Man needs hope and
enterprise and change. Among modern
philosophers, the ideal of unending and unchanging
happiness has been replaced by that of evolution.
Evolution in this sense means an orderly progress
towards a goal which is never quite attained. This
change of outlook is part of the substitution of
dynamics for statics which began with Galileo. The
concept of dynamics has affected all modern
thinking, whether scientific or political.
Hegel's philosophy and it's political implications
Hegel's philosophy was so odd that we are
surprised how it could have exercised so much
influence upon the minds of a multitude of
intellectuals even outside Germany. Hegel uses the
phrase “the Absolute Idea” to convey his notion of
real reality, and his definition of the Absolute Idea
may thus be stated: “The Absolute Idea is pure
thought thinking about pure thought”. Indeed, Hegel
sets out his philosophy with so much obscurity that
people thought it must be profound though actually
it is absurd. From this absurd philosophy Hegel
derives equally absurd political views. From his
philosophy Hegel draws the following inferences: (1)
that true liberty consists in obedience to an arbitrary
authority; (2) that free speech is an evil; (3) that
absolute monarchy is good; and (4) that war is good,
and an international organization for the peaceful
settlement of disputes would be most undesirable.
Hegel arrives at these conclusions through a line of
reasoning which is far from rational.
Hegel's influence on Karl Marx
Hegel's philosophy produced a deep effect on Karl
Marx who took over some of Hegel's most fanciful
tenets. More particularly, Marx took over the belief
that history develops according to a logical plan and
is concerned to find ways of avoiding self-
contradiction. Thus both Hegel and Marx advocated
an autocratic system, though the kind of autocracy
in the two cases is different. It is only on the basis of
unquestioned dogma that an autocratic system can
theoretically be justified; it is only if we accept
Hegel’s theory of history that we can justify an
autocratic system such as was advocated by Hegel.
Locks empiricist philosophy and it's connection with
the theory of liberal politics
Democracy has its theoretical justification in another
philosophy altogether; and that philosophy is
empiricism. So far as the modern world is
concerned, the founder of the philosophy of
empiricism was John Locke. Locke makes it clear
how closely his philosophy is connected with his
views on liberty and toleration, and with his
opposition to absolute monarchy. Locke constantly
emphasizes the uncertainty of most of our
knowledge. He tries to make us aware of the
possibility that we may be mistaken in the views we
hold and that we should therefore freely discuss our
views with men holding different views. His
philosophy of empiricism thus leads to the liberal
theory of politics.
Empricisim recommended on ethical grounds
Finally, Russell recommends empiricism not only on
the ground of its greater truth but also on ethical
grounds. Dogma demands authority, rather than
intelligent thought, as the source of opinion. Dogma
requires a prosecution of those who do not accept it.
Dogma calls upon its followers to suppress natural
kindness in favour of systematic hatred. Rival
dogmas lead to war because they do not recognize
the usefulness of free discussion; and war in our
scientific age means universal death.
Thus, by sustained logical reasoning, Russell arrives
at the conclusion that the modern world needs the
philosophy of empiricist liberalism. The modern
world is technically unified, but it is politically
divided; and the world will not continue for long if
beliefs are not held on the basis of this philosophy.
Russell convincingly exposes the absurdity of
Hegel's philosophy and its disastrous political
consequences. In the light of his exposition of
Hegel’s philosophy, we really wonder how some of
the best minds of Europe fell under Hegel's spell.
Similarly, Russell exposes the absurdity of Plato's
political beliefs which deceived the world for ages.
No right-thinking person can deny the value of
empiricism and the liberalism to which it leads in the
political sphere. The gist of Russell's entire
reasoning in this essay is that we should hold our
political beliefs tentatively just as a scientist believes
in his theories tentatively. Russell strongly
disapproves of a dogmatic holding of beliefs, and
this disapproval is fully justified. The dogmatist has a
closed mind; he would pay no heed to the new
evidence which may become available at any time. It
is for this reason that communists are so stubborn
and so aggressive. While democracy is tolerant
towards its opponents, communism not only does
not tolerate opposition but is always ready to
persecute and liquidate its opponents. Russell
shows himself to be a true liberal, a true democrat, a
true lover of freedom, a true humanist. Even his
advocacy of democracy is not fanatical; in fact, he
gives us concrete historical examples of the evil
consequences of a fanatical advocacy of
democracy. What can be more broad-minded and
large-hearted than the attitude of a strong believer in
democracy who yet refuses to offer fanatical
support to it ? Philosophy and Politics is an essay
which should have a liberalizing effect on everyone
who goes through it; at the same time it is an essay
which greatly adds to our knowledge by revealing to
us how political beliefs are derived from the theories
of professional philosophers.