In the second half of his life, Bertrand Russell transformed himself from a major philosopher, whose work was intelligible to a small elite, into a political activist and popular writer, known to millions throughout the world. Yet his life is the tragic story of a man who believed in a modern, rational approach to life and who, though his ideas guided popular opinion throughout the twentieth century, lost everything.
Russell's views on marriage, religion, education, and politics attracted legions of devoted followers and, at the same time, provoked harsh attacks from every direction. On the one hand, he was stripped of his post at New York's City College because he was thought to be a bad influence on his students, and on the other, he was awarded the Order of Merit, the Nobel Prize in literature, and a lifetime Fellowship of Trinity College, Cambridge. He lived to be ninety-seven, and as he became older he became increasingly controversial. Monk quotes Russell's telegrams to Kennedy and Khrushchev during the Cuban missile crisis, an influence that Russell and his followers believed tipped the balance toward peace. Russell devoted his last years to a campaign organized by his secretary to lend support to Che Guevara's call for a globally coordinated revolutionary struggle against "U.S. imperialism." Until now, this last campaign has been misunderstood as a -- perhaps misguided, but nevertheless innocent -- plea for world peace. Monk reveals it was no such thing.
Drawing on thousands of documents collected at the Russell archives in Canada, Monk steers through the turbulence of Russell's public activities, scrutinizing his sometimes paradoxical and often outrageous pronouncements. Monk's focus, however, is on the tragedy of Russell's personal life, and in revealing this inner drama Monk has relied heavily on the cooperation of Russell's surviving relatives and access to previously unexamined legal and private correspondence. A central player in Russell's life was his first son, John. Russell applied the methods of the new science of child psychology in his parenting, believing that a new generation of children could be reared to be "independent, fearless, and free." But instead of being a model of this new generation, John became anxious, withdrawn, and eventually schizophrenic. Nor was John's daughter Lucy (who was Russell's favorite grandchild) to be a model of the new generation; gradually she grew so emotionally disturbed that, at the age of twenty-six, she took her own life.
The Ghost of Madness completes the most searching examination yet published of Bertrand Russell's unique life and work. Together with Ray Monk's highly praised first volume of the biography, The Spirit of Solitude, this is the classic account of an extraordinary man who championed the great ideas of the twentieth century and was all but destroyed by them. It is a portrait of the mind of a century.
Bertrand Russell - The Most Influential Academic of the 20th CenturyNovember 13, 2008 Monk vastly underates the influence of Russell's popularizations on the day. What is now taken to be fourth rate work was viewed then as a synthesis of the very best of the scientific world and as delivering an advanced ethics. Russell was an international figure decade after decade. Basically, of course, behind the work was a totatalistic political view with large political goals for the future. Russell was highly political and the popularizations were part of a political program. Totalistic political programs that seek large future goals are Hegelian. Russell's first book was on Hegel I believe. Russell claimed to be reacting against Hegel but I think the evidence is clear that Russell was the first neo-con with the esoteric goal of effecting a large scale political regime change in the future in line with a covert Hegelianism. Being right or left is tactical for neo-cons with for example, Russell and Rorty on the left and Leo Strauss on the right. Russell had to have held that all Russell wrote was to be negated. Almost certainly Russell didn't believe a word of the popularizations when penned. The popularizations were for the 'audience in the auditorium'. Russell was quite familiar with the esoteric and exoteric distinction as Russell's remarks on Leibnitz show. Russell held that philosophers have two views, one esoteric and one exoteric. One can argue that the obscure journals are really where long term influence is wielded but such is far from certain. Take Quine for example. Quine is one for the decades rather than one for the centuries but Quine had some great decades. Translation is impossible? I don't think so. Quine's Whorfian hypothesis that language cuts the world up? No. Wittgenstein showed language was use that there is no aboutness to language. Quine's view that Science is reducable to organized 'sensory feels'? This is nonsensical. The goal of Quine, of course, was to undermine investigations into the traditional field of philosophy which is Being and to make a space for a political program. Programs like Quine are only effective to the extent the program is bootstrapping. Quine created an army who nitpicked over details ostensively defending the nonsensical theories Quine propounded but really making a space for Quine's attack on philosophy in line with Russell and the goal of a Hegelian politics. Neo-con 'theories' are there to build armies for a Hegelian politics. Witness the neo-cons and the fundamentalist Christians. Popularizations as politics has had a vast influence on the 20th century and Russell lead the way.
Examples of Monk's anti-Russell BiasJune 22, 2008 1 out of 1 found this review helpful
As other reviews point out, Monk, who worships Wittgenstein and was generally sympathetic in treating the first half of Russell's life, turns totally negative in the second volume. He criticizes Russell's popular hack-work writing, his radical politics, and his chaotic sexual and family life. Even if one were to share Monk's politics and prudery,Monk overgeneralizes his attack on Russell, Monk's criticisms of Russell go beyond this even to Russell's technical work. An example of this is Monk's treatment of Russell's book "The Analysis of Matter." (Monk, pp.71-3.)Monk dismisses Russell's structural account of physics, and backs his rejection by citing Russell's own premature acceptance of the thrust of the critical review by the topologist Newman. Russell, despite his apparent vanity and enormous ego tended to overly quickly accept criticism of others, for instance Wittgenstein's criticism of the early manuscript of Russell's theory of knowledge, which the latter did not himself publish. Ironically structuralism or structural realism is a major contender in the philosophy of contemporary theoretical physics. Many cutting edge philosophers of modern physics, for instance Steven French and James Ladyman, treat this approach as a live and serious option. Others, such as Thomas Ryckman treat it as an opposing view worthy of counter-argument. Monk, driven by his anti-Russell animus gone wild, casually dismisses this approach as worthless, ignorant of more recent developments in the philosophy of physics. Another example is in Monk's treatment of Russell's more serious historical and political writings. Monk dismisses Russell's work "Power" (pp. 212-14) as simply an emotive and banal piece of sermonizing, devoid of any theoretical analysis. It is odd then that Steven Lukes, for instance, includes Russell, along with theorists such as Max Weber, Hannah Arendt, Georg Simmell, Habermas, John Kenneth Garlbraith, and Foucault, in his anthology on "Power." Similarly Monk dismisses Russell's "Freedom and Organization 1814-1914" as "amateurish" and "not a serious contribution to the historical literature" because it does not contain historical research based on original documents. He ignores that it might be a useful and insightful summary of the main trends of the period. These are just three examples of the way that Monk in his vendetta against Russell and in some ways understandable dislike of Russell's personality has to discredit even Russell's more serious contributions of his later period.
Thanks Ray!February 11, 2007 1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Having read "Wittgenstein", then vol 1 of this biography, this was a natural and exciting follower. I certainly have to wonder what connection there is to a life associated, at least ab initio, with mathematics and failure in one's personal life. Considering the connection between logic, mathematics, and reasoning, and our need for success with those to be successful in one's life in general, this certainly brings up an issue of a golden mean between extremes. It perhaps also brings up an issue of autism and the genetic predisposition to autism as a range of autism might on one hand lead to outstanding mathematical accomplishment accompanied by outstanding social failure.
It is such a shame that such a great mind would give up such important work for lack of - self discipline? Self control? A family madness? Most telling I thought was the quote given in response to the question "Why did you give up philosophy?" Since his response is shocking but stabs to the heart of the personal difficulties experienced by BR and successfully passed on to almost all of his children and grandchildren one has to wonder was this nurture or nature. A clue seems to be the success of those who had the earliest and longest break in contact. The less contact the more success?
Perhaps an errata sheet should be made available regarding the apparent deleted words. One sentence especially seemed to need "not" to make sense in context, but in general I found my reading to be abruptly halted with the awareness of a word missing - in a context where I could know precisely what word would have been right. I half wonder if RM was using a new word processor or something? I did not notice this at all with vol. 1.
Regardless, of all the things worth reading this will always be high on my recommend list. Great philosophers are easier to understand when we know as much as we can about them as persons. Thanks Ray! Eternally grateful.
Autobiography vs. biographyOctober 31, 2003 7 out of 13 found this review helpful
Because of Russell's political views (his opposition to war and U.S. imperialism) he has always been the subject of attacks by other intellectuals (the late Sidney Hook is a prime example). One only has to compare Monk's work on Russell to his biography of Wittgenstein ("The Duty of Genius" says it all). The interesting thing about each of Monk's biographies is that while both men led solitary lives and maintained erratic beliefs and behavior, Russell is castigated as a "madman" while Wittgenstein is a "genius." It is far too easy as a biographer to portray intellectual celebrities as either geniuses or madman. If you want to hear from the person, Bertie Russell, read his biography instead.
A tormented volcanic island who spilled a lot of lavaeMay 16, 2003 6 out of 8 found this review helpful
This exceptional book is a sequel to The Spirit of Solitude, written by Ray Amok, which covers the first 50 years of Russell's life, and which could be summarized by achieving world fame and academic glory by means of his early work as a philosophical mathematician, specially trough his "Principia Matematica",a monumental theoretical work, with the co-authorship of Whitehead.
Ray Monk magistrally portrays Russell as facing now the challenge of taking a new direction to his life, trying to achieve the same level of academical glory when entering into new fields of knowledge. The story is of a genius who had to prove to himself that he had not lost his intelectual vigour in the ageing proccess and at the same time , balancing his mundane needs trough popular texts written to readers not specialized in philosophy and mathematics, and many other areas where he was proficient.
He marriages now for the second time in his life, with Dora, with he would generate a son (John) and a daughter (Kate), began for him a new era as an educator and as a mass-comunicator, where he approached all the available means (newspapers, magazines, radio panels and lectures) in order to make money thus providing the material means for his special ideas on how to educate his children. He wrote many books on the subject and even inaugurated a special school where his two children where educated along with the children of some upper-class Englishmen and Americans.
He was two be married again twice and to have more children with Peter (yes, a very special nickname of his third wive). In terms of the outcome he got, it was nothing anyone could foresee at the beginning.
To sum it up, the book is a faithful portrait of a tormented man, surrounded by all kinds of people who loved/hated him, and who seems to destroy every inch of happiness one could have before getting to know him. Strange as it seems, the man who was trying to save the world with his pacifist stand against nazism, and later comunism, and all forms of totalitarianism, was incapable of understand the human nature of all people who lived with him.
This is a good book to read to everyone interested in philosophy and in the life of the greatest philosopher of the 20th century.
