It ought to be admitted that some performances are considered so essentially noble as to justify the sacrifice of everything else on their behalf. The man who loses his life in the defence of his country is not blamed if thereby his wife and children are left penniless. The man who is engaged in experiments with a view to some great scientific discovery or invention is not blamed afterwards for the poverty that he has made his family endure, provided that his efforts are crowned with ultimate success. If, however, he never succeeds in making the discovery or the invention that he was attempting, public opinion condemns him as a crank, which seems unfair, since no one in such an enterprise can be sure of success in advance. – Bertrand Russell
Tag: the conquest of happiness
Bertrand Russell on envy, from The Conquest of Happiness
Here’s the next rewritten excerpt from Bertrand Russell’s The Conquest of Happiness. I’ll publish my completely rewritten version as an ebook in the coming weeks. In case you missed part 1: Russell on competition.
From Chapter 6, on Envy:
Napoleon envied Caesar, who envied Alexander, who probably envied Hercules, who existed only in myth! Success is never the cure for envy. Eliminate envy by enjoying what life brings you, by working hard, and by avoiding comparison with those you think more blessed than you.
Extreme modesty is itself a form of envy. Measured modesty is a virtue, but extreme modesty shouldn’t be similarly regarded. An overly modest person needs reassurance to do things which they’re very capable of doing.
[…]
Envy is closely related to competition. We don’t envy people we think are out of reach. During periods when the social hierarchy was fixed, the lower classes didn’t envy the upper classes because movement between them was impossible. Beggars don’t envy billionaires, they envy other beggars who have a warm spot to sleep for the night.
However, the current instability of social status, combined with democracy’s message that everyone is equal, has made envy accessible to all. Eventually we’ll arrive at a more just social system, but for now, the poor envy the rich, poor nations envy rich nations, women envy men, the chaste envy the promiscuous.
While envy can be productive and lead to justice between classes, nations, and even genders, the justice that results is the worst kind, the kind that hurts the fortunate, rather than helping the unfortunate. If you desire profound, positive societal change, you should root for reasons other than envy to be the driving force.
[…]
Most envy which seems on the surface professional is actually sexual in nature. A man who loves his wife and kids will be much less envious of other men’s success and wealth. What makes people happy is simple, often deceptively so, such that so-called sophisticated people fool themselves into making it complicated.
Bertrand Russell on competition, from The Conquest of Happiness
Recently I’ve started to rewrite passages from old books. It’s been a good way to practice writing in different styles, while learning new things. My current project is Bertrand Russell’s The Conquest of Happiness. Over the next few weeks I’ll publish more excerpts, and I may publish the finished version as an ebook.
From Chapter 3, on Competition:
The treadmill that people run on doesn’t take them anywhere. These runners are people who do well, earn a decent income, people who could, if they chose, work less or work on something that truly excites them. But deviating from their existing path would be embarrassing, like deserting the army in the face of the enemy, though if you ask what is the greater good of their work, they’re unable to respond, or they’ll articulate a phrase they heard on TV or read in a textbook.
[…]
The main problem is greed. The businesswoman’s religion demands she become rich; to become happy instead, she must quit the church. As long as she desires only success and believes a person who does otherwise is inferior, she’ll remain too focused and anxious to be happy.
[…]
While in non-business professions there is a desire to compete and win, what’s respected is not success alone but excellence in the job. For example, a scientist may be wealthy or poor, but her respect is not tied to her income. And no one would be surprised to find a famous artist in poverty; in fact, poverty is an honor. But for the businesswoman, there is no success beyond the competitive struggle to get rich.
[…]
But life’s primary aim cannot be competition. It’s too grim, too much about desire and tension, to create a life worth living for more than a few decades. Soon it produces nervous fatigue, a desire to escape and a need for pleasures as aggressive as the work itself. True relaxation becomes impossible. The competitive focus poisons not only work but leisure, too. Leisure that was once calm and refreshing becomes dull and silly. This sort of life results in drugs and eventual collapse. The only way to cure it is by seeking sensible and quiet pleasures within a balanced life.
*Note: where Russell used a male pronoun, I replaced it with a female one (eg, businesswoman instead of businessman)
Bertrand Russell on why science — and today, technology — is the happiest profession
Of the highly-educated professions, the happiest today are the men of science. Many of them get such pleasure from their work that they can be happy even in marriage. Artists and writers consider it normal to be unhappily married, but scientists can often achieve so-called domestic bliss. This is because their highest intellects are so absorbed by their work, that they’re not allowed to invade other parts of their life where they would be harmful. They’re happy with their work because science today is progressive and powerful, and its importance is never questioned by themselves or the broader population.
This was written before World War II, yet swap “men of science” with “men of technology” and it’d ring true today. I think a career in science has lost value in many areas and for many reasons. A reduction in career prestige. Less everyday appreciation among the public, and more irrational outrage (eg, GMOs). The increasingly specialized nature of PhD programs. The stagnant academic job market. Challenges in higher ed posed by technology and software. And so on.
But technology today is progressive and powerful. Its importance is not questioned, really, by technologists or the broader population. Their jobs consume their mental energy. Hard to think of another highly-educated profession which is “happier”.
On the science vs technology divide, Kevin Kelly has a great piece.
*I have no opinion on domestic bliss…remember, in Russell’s time, female labor participation was below 25%. Mad Men was progressive by comparison
**I’m rewriting Russell’s The Conquest of Happiness, here’s a snippet
Bertrand Russell’s 4 rules for avoiding persecution mania
For Bertrand Russell — mathematician, writer, philosopher — persecution mania is two things: a belief that everyone is out to GET you, or a belief that everything that happens is ABOUT you. At a cafe, the woman on the phone who glances your way is gossiping about your outfit; a truck that cuts you off in traffic doesn’t like your driving style; and on it goes…
He believes persecution mania is a cause of insanity and a barrier to happiness, and offers four rules for prevention and relief (hah, I sound like a pharmaceutical commercial):
Number 1: your motives are not as altruistic as you think
Number 2: don’t overestimate your own merits
Number 3: don’t expect others to be as interested in you as you are in yourself
Number 4: don’t assume people care enough about you to want to harm you
Wise words from a book with many more: The Conquest of Happiness. Btw, I’m rewriting it — with the occasional adjustment — in a more casual, simple voice…I’ll share when it’s done!