russellian-j

[russellian-j]

バートランド・ラッセルの言葉366_画像版 n.3160j (June 26, 2025)

　私が直接知っているものは全て私の「心(mind) 」の一部であり，私が他の事物の存在に到達するための推論は、決して決定的なものではない。従って,(理論上)自分の心以外の何ものも存在しないかも知れない。その場合，自分が死ねば世界（宇宙）消滅する。しかし，もし私が自分以外の心を認めるつもりなら，私は（他者だけでなく）天文学的宇宙全体を認めなければならない。なぜなら，両者（他人の心と天文学的宇宙）の事例において，その(存在の)証拠はまったく同等に強力であるからである。

Everything that I know directly is part of my "mind," and the inferences by which I arrive at the existence of other things are by no means conclusive. It may be, therefore, that nothing exists except my mind. In that case, when I die the universe will go out. But if I am going to admit minds other than my own, I must admit the whole astronomical universe, since the evidence is exactly equally strong in both cases. 　Source: Bertrand Russell: Religion and Science, 1935, chapt. 8: 　More info.:　 https://russell-j.com/beginner/RS1935_08-230.HTM

＜寸言＞ 　理論上は、私（あるいは私の意識）以外何も存在しないという「独我論」（solipcism）を否定することはできません。しかし、もちろん、実際上は（日常生活においては）「独我論」を信じる人はいません。もし本当に信じるなら、目の前の断崖は、自分の意識にあらわれた「幻想」にすぎないと思って一歩進めば、自分は死に、自分の意識も同時になくなってしまいます。 　しかし、「自分の心��以外の「他人の心」を認めるやいなや、自分が観測する宇宙全体の存在を認めることになります。自分から遠ざかるにつれその信頼性の度合いが低くなるだけです。 　当たり前のことですが、科学と言えども、各個人の観測した結果（数値/データ）をもとに築かれています。通常の感覚・知覚能力を備えた人間（たとえば自分）の観測結果が信頼できないのなら、多くの通常の能力をもった人間が記録した大量のデータをもとに築かれた科学の信頼性も損なわれることになってしまい、科学の多くの成果が信頼できなくなってしまいます。 　何を信じ何を疑うか、その程度は人様々ですが、「軽信」が多くの害をもたらすことも少なくないため、注意が必要です。

In theory, solipsism. the view that nothing exists outside myself (or my own consciousness), cannot be disproved. Yet in practice, in the ordinary course of daily life, no one truly subscribes to solipsism. Were one really to believe it, one might step forward thinking that the cliff edge before one's eyes was merely an "illusion" arising in one's mind; one would fall to one's death, and one's consciousness would vanish at that very instant. The moment we acknowledge minds other than our own, however, we are also committed to acknowledging the existence of the entire universe we observe; only the degree of confidence diminishes as things grow more distant from us. Needless to say, even science is built on the numerical results and data gathered through individual observations. If the observations of a normally functioning human being, say, myself, could not be trusted, then the reliability of science, founded on the vast trove of data recorded by many such people, would likewise be undermined, and many scientific achievements would cease to be credible. What each of us chooses to believe or to doubt varies from person to person, but credulity can often bring considerable harm, so vigilance is required.

[russellian-j]

Bertrand Russell Quotes 366 with images, n3160 (June 26, 2025)

Everything that I know directly is part of my "mind," and the inferences by which I arrive at the existence of other things are by no means conclusive. It may be, therefore, that nothing exists except my mind. In that case, when I die the universe will go out. But if I am going to admit minds other than my own, I must admit the whole astronomical universe, since the evidence is exactly equally strong in both cases. 　Source: Bertrand Russell: Religion and Science, 1935, chapt. 8: 　More info.: https://russell-j.com/beginner/RS1935_08-230.HTM

a brief comment: In theory, solipsism. the view that nothing exists outside myself (or my own consciousness), cannot be disproved. Yet in practice, in the ordinary course of daily life, no one truly subscribes to solipsism. Were one really to believe it, one might step forward thinking that the cliff edge before one's eyes was merely an "illusion" arising in one's mind; one would fall to one's death, and one's consciousness would vanish at that very instant. The moment we acknowledge minds other than our own, however, we are also committed to acknowledging the existence of the entire universe we observe; only the degree of confidence diminishes as things grow more distant from us. Needless to say, even science is built on the numerical results and data gathered through individual observations. If the observations of a normally functioning human being, say, myself, could not be trusted, then the reliability of science, founded on the vast trove of data recorded by many such people, would likewise be undermined, and many scientific achievements would cease to be credible. What each of us chooses to believe or to doubt varies from person to person, but credulity can often bring considerable harm, so vigilance is required.

[russellian-j]

Bertrand Russell Quotes 366 with images, n3159 (June 25, 2025)

There are two kinds of space, that in which one person's private experiences are situated, and that of physics, which contains other people's bodies, chairs and tables, the sun, moon and stars, not merely as reflected in our private sensations, … The starry heavens that I see are not the remote starry heavens of astronomy, but an effect of the stars on me ; what I see is in me, not outside of me. The stars of astronomy are in physical space, which is outside of me, but which I only arrive at by inference, not through analysis of my own experience. 　Source: Bertrand Russell: Religion and Science, 1935, chapt. 8: 　More info.: https://russell-j.com/beginner/RS1935_08-140.HTM

a brief comment: In connection with "Today's Words of Russell" (see attached image), I have been reflecting on the following ideas.

According to what is now regarded as the standard view in modern physics, space and time (or more precisely, spacetime) did not exist before the Big Bang. Spacetime came into being in an instant through the Big Bang, and since then, the universe has been expanding at a speed close to that of light. The universe is full of mysteries. Life emerged in a universe where no life had previously existed. That life, however, depends on the localized environment of the solar system, and it is likely that, when the solar system eventually disappears, all life within it will vanish as well. In philosophy, "consciousness" is a major topic of inquiry. But perhaps it is only considered important because we humans believe it to be so. If humanity were to go extinct, there would no longer be any living beings who consider human consciousness to be significant. It is possible that some form of extraterrestrial intelligent life might study human consciousness as part of cosmic archaeology or cosmic history, but what they might study, how they would do so, or even what such beings might be like, all of that remains unknown. That said, for us humans, our own consciousness remains a fascinating subject. So it would not seem pointless for us to keep reflecting on it.

[russellian-j]

バートランド・ラッセルの言葉366_画像版 n.3159j (June 25, 2025)

　空間には２種類ある。一つは、個人の私的な経験が置かれている空間（訳注：私的空間）、もう一つは――単に私たちの私的な感覚に映し出されたものとしてではない――他人の身体や椅子、テーブル、太陽、月、星々等が含まれている物理学の空間（訳注：公的空間）である。・・・。私が見ている星空は、天文学が扱う遠くにある星空そのものではなく，星が私に与える効果（影響）である。（また）私が見ているものは、私の中（注：私の意識）にあるのであり，（私の身体の）外にあるのではない。つまり、天文学における星々は、私の外にある物理的空間の中に存在しているが、私はその空間に、自分自身の経験の分析によってではなく、推論によってのみ到達する。

There are two kinds of space, that in which one person's private experiences are situated, and that of physics, which contains other people's bodies, chairs and tables, the sun, moon and stars, not merely as reflected in our private sensations, … The starry heavens that I see are not the remote starry heavens of astronomy, but an effect of the stars on me ; what I see is in me, not outside of me. The stars of astronomy are in physical space, which is outside of me, but which I only arrive at by inference, not through analysis of my own experience. 　Source: Bertrand Russell: Religion and Science, 1935, chapt. 8: 　More info.:　 https://russell-j.com/beginner/RS1935_08-140.HTM

＜寸言＞ 　「本日のラッセルの言葉（添付画像参照）」に関連して次のようなことを考えました。 　ビックバンが起こる前には空間も時間も（より正確には「時空」は）存在せず、ビックバンによって一瞬のうちに「時空」が生まれ、以後、光速にかぎりなく近い速度で宇宙は拡大しているというのが、現代物理学において標準的な考え方になっているようです。 　宇宙は不思議に満ちています。生命が存在しなかった宇宙に生命が生まれました。その生命も、太陽系という局所的な環境に依存しており、いずれ太陽系が消滅すれば、太陽系内の生命も消滅することになるはずです。 　哲学では「意識」は重要なテーマとなっています。しかし、人間が重要だと思っているだけで、人類が死滅すれば、少なくとも人間の「意識」を重要だと考える生命体は存在しなくなります。何らかの地球外の高等生命体が宇宙考古学あるいは宇宙史の対象として興味深く研究するかも知れませんが、何をどうやって研究するのか、地球外の高等生命体がどういうものか、よくわかりません。 　そうは言っても、人間にとって「（自分の）意識」は興味深い対象ですので、いろいろ思案するのは、人間にとっては無駄ではなさそうです。

In connection with "Today's Words of Russell" (see attached image), I have been reflecting on the following ideas.

According to what is now regarded as the standard view in modern physics, space and time (or more precisely, spacetime) did not exist before the Big Bang. Spacetime came into being in an instant through the Big Bang, and since then, the universe has been expanding at a speed close to that of light. The universe is full of mysteries. Life emerged in a universe where no life had previously existed. That life, however, depends on the localized environment of the solar system, and it is likely that, when the solar system eventually disappears, all life within it will vanish as well. In philosophy, "consciousness" is a major topic of inquiry. But perhaps it is only considered important because we humans believe it to be so. If humanity were to go extinct, there would no longer be any living beings who consider human consciousness to be significant. It is possible that some form of extraterrestrial intelligent life might study human consciousness as part of cosmic archaeology or cosmic history, but what they might study, how they would do so, or even what such beings might be like, all of that remains unknown. That said, for us humans, our own consciousness remains a fascinating subject. So it would not seem pointless for us to keep reflecting on it.

[russellian-j]

バートランド・ラッセルの言葉366_画像版 n.3158j (June 24, 2025)

　現在の過去と未来とに対する関係は，心理学においても他の場合と同じように，因果関係（注：原因と結果の関係）であり，相互浸透の関係ではない。・・・記憶は過去の存在を延長はしない，記憶は，単に，過去が影響をもつひとつの方法に過ぎない。 . The relations of the present to the past and the future, in psychology as elsewhere, are causal relations, not relations of interpenetration. …Memory does not prolong the existence of the past ; it is merely one way in which the past has effects. 　Source: Bertrand Russell: Religion and Science, 1935, chapt. 8: 　More info.:　 https://russell-j.com/beginner/RS1935_08-130.HTM

＜寸言＞ 　物理学では、人間の主観を排して可能な限り客観的に考えることが求められます。ところが、心理学では研究対象が「心」であるため、どうしても主観が介在しやすく、物理学と同じレベルで客観性を追及しようとする人は、そう多くはないように思われます。 　たとえば、「本日のラッセルの言葉」（添付画像参照）の中にある次の一文： 「Memory does not prolong the existence of the past ; it is merely one way in which the past has effects.（記憶は過去の存在を引き延ばすものではなく、過去が影響を及ぼす一つの方法にすぎない）」 を、みなさんはどのように受け取るでしょうか？　 　私たちはつい、「記憶がある限り、過去は今も自分の中に生きている」と感じがちです。しかし、実際には、記憶内容は時間とともに変化し、時には再構成されることさえあります。つまり、私たちが思い出す「過去の記憶」は、厳密には「現在の脳の中にある記憶」であって、当時そのままの記録ではありません。 　そう考えると、ラッセルが言うように「記憶は過去の持続物ではなく、過去が現在に及ぼす影響の一つの方法にすぎない」という指摘は、心理学においても、より客観的な思考を促す上で、重要なヒントを与えてくれるのではないでしょうか。

In physics, we are expected to eliminate personal subjectivity and think as objectively as possible. In contrast, since the subject of study in psychology is the human mind, subjectivity tends to creep in, and there do not seem to be many people who try to pursue objectivity to the same degree as in physics. For example, consider the following sentence from "Today's Words of Russell" (see attached image): "Memory does not prolong the existence of the past; it is merely one way in which the past has effects." How do you interpret this statement? We tend to feel that “as long as we have memories, the past still lives on within us.” However, in reality, the contents of memory change over time, and are sometimes even reconstructed. In other words, what we recall as a “past memory” is, strictly speaking, a memory that exists now in our brain, it is not a direct record of what happened at the time. From this perspective, Russell's point-that memory is not a continuation of the past, but merely one way in which the past affects the present?seems to offer an important insight. Even in psychology, where subjective interpretations often dominate, this view may encourage us to adopt a more objective way of thinking.

[russellian-j]

Bertrand Russell Quotes 366 with images, n3158 (June 24, 2025)

The relations of the present to the past and the future, in psychology as elsewhere, are causal relations, not relations of interpenetration. … Memory does not prolong the existence of the past ; it is merely one way in which the past has effects. 　Source: Religion and Science, 1935, chapt. 8: Cosmic Purpose 　More info.: https://russell-j.com/beginner/RS1935_08-130.HTM

a brief comment: In physics, we are expected to eliminate personal subjectivity and think as objectively as possible. In contrast, since the subject of study in psychology is the human mind, subjectivity tends to creep in, and there do not seem to be many people who try to pursue objectivity to the same degree as in physics. For example, consider the following sentence from "Today's Words of Russell" (see attached image): "Memory does not prolong the existence of the past; it is merely one way in which the past has effects." How do you interpret this statement? We tend to feel that "as long as we have memories, the past still lives on within us." However, in reality, the contents of memory change over time, and are sometimes even reconstructed. In other words, what we recall as a "past memory" is, strictly speaking, a memory that exists now in our brain, it is not a direct record of what happened at the time. From this perspective, Russell's point that memory is not a continuation of the past, but merely one way in which the past affects the present, seems to offer an important insight. Even in psychology, where subjective interpretations often dominate, this view may encourage us to adopt a more objective way of thinking.

[russellian-j]

バートランド・ラッセルの言葉366_画像版 n.3157j (June 23, 2025)

物理学の方法（手法）は、今日ではもう存在してない、「物質」という形而上学的実体の存在への信念のもとで、発展した。そして、新しい量子力学は誤った形而上学を必要としない異なる方法（手法）を持っている。一方、心理学の方法は、ある程度まで、「心」という形而上学的存在（実在）への信念のもとで発展した。物理学と心理学は，両者ともこれらの延々と続いている誤りから完全に解放された時には、心や物質を扱うのではなく、「物理的」とも「精神的（心的）」とも名付けられないような事象を扱う科学へと発達する可能性があるように思われる。 . The technique of physics was developed under the influence of a belief in the metaphysical reality of "matter" which now no longer exists, and the new quantum mechanics has a different technique which dispenses with false metaphysics. The technique of psychology, to some extent, was developed under a belief in the metaphysical reality of the "mind." It seems possible that, when physics and psychology have both been completely freed from these lingering errors, they will both develop into one science dealing neither with mind nor with matter, but with events, which will not be labelled either "physical" or "mental." 　Source: Bertrand Russell: Religion and Science, 1935, chapt. 8: 　More info.:　 https://russell-j.com/beginner/RS1935_08-110.HTM

＜寸言＞ 　私たち（人間の）思考に対する態度は、日常的にものごとを考える場合と、科学的かつ論理的にものごとを考える場合とでは、非常に異なっています。限られた命の生命体（人間）としては、生きている間はできるだけ快適に過ごせるようにいろいろ創意工夫したり、新しいものを生み出したりしようとするのは、自然なことです。それと同時に、高度な思考能力を持つ私たち人間は、自分（たち）の立場を離れて、世界（宇宙）を客観的に理解しようとします。後者の立場を究極的に進めると「本日のラッセルの言葉（添付画像）」にあるような主張がでてきます。 　それでは、人間がこのような思考ができることは驚くべきことでしょうか、それともそれも単なる妄想（脳内現象）に過ぎないでしょうか？ 　太陽は約50億年後に赤色巨星化した後に白色矮星となって終わりを迎えると考えられていますので、その時には地球も消滅しているはずです。しかし、その前に人類は太陽系外に進出しているでしょうか？　それとも、その前に地球温暖化あるいは寒冷化などで人類は死滅しているでしょうか？　私個人の命はごく短いのでこんな心配をする必要はないですが、人間に与えられた知性がこうした壮大な問いを可能にしていることは、やはり興味深いことです。

Our attitude toward thinking differs greatly depending on whether we are thinking about things in our everyday lives or approaching them in a scientific and logical manner. As living beings with limited lifespans, it is only natural that we strive to live as comfortably as possible during our time on Earth, engaging in various forms of creative ingenuity and seeking to create new things. At the same time, we humans possess advanced intellectual capacities, and we use them to attempt to understand the world-the universe, objectively, from a perspective detached from our own personal standpoint. When we pursue this latter perspective to its ultimate end, we arrive at claims such as the one found in "Today's Russell Quotation" (see attached image). Is it astonishing that human beings are capable of such a mode of thought? Or is it merely another illusion, a product of neural activity within the brain? It is believed that the sun will become a red giant about five billion years from now and then end its life as a white dwarf, and by that time the Earth will likely have ceased to exist. Will humanity have ventured beyond the solar system before then? Or will we have gone extinct due to global warming, or perhaps a new ice age, long before that? My own life is far too short to be troubled by such questions, and yet, the fact that the human intellect allows us to pose such vast and profound questions is, in itself, a matter of deep fascination.

[russellian-j]

Bertrand Russell Quotes 366 with images, n3157 (June 23, 2025)

The technique of physics was developed under the influence of a belief in the metaphysical reality of "matter" which now no longer exists, and the new quantum mechanics has a different technique which dispenses with false metaphysics. The technique of psychology, to some extent, was developed under a belief in the metaphysical reality of the "mind." It seems possible that, when physics and psychology have both been completely freed from these lingering errors, they will both develop into one science dealing neither with mind nor with matter, but with events, which will not be labelled either "physical" or "mental." 　Source: Bertrand Russell: Religion and Science, 1935, chapt. 8: 　More info.: https://russell-j.com/beginner/RS1935_08-110.HTM

a brief comment: Our attitude toward thinking differs greatly depending on whether we are thinking about things in our everyday lives or approaching them in a scientific and logical manner. As living beings with limited lifespans, it is only natural that we strive to live as comfortably as possible during our time on Earth, engaging in various forms of creative ingenuity and seeking to create new things. At the same time, we humans possess advanced intellectual capacities, and we use them to attempt to understand the world-the universe, objectively, from a perspective detached from our own personal standpoint. When we pursue this latter perspective to its ultimate end, we arrive at claims such as the one found in "Today's Russell Quotation" (see attached image). Is it astonishing that human beings are capable of such a mode of thought? Or is it merely another illusion, a product of neural activity within the brain? It is believed that the sun will become a red giant about five billion years from now and then end its life as a white dwarf, and by that time the Earth will likely have ceased to exist. Will humanity have ventured beyond the solar system before then? Or will we have gone extinct due to global warming, or perhaps a new ice age, long before that? My own life is far too short to be troubled by such questions, and yet, the fact that the human intellect allows us to pose such vast and profound questions is, in itself, a matter of deep fascination.

[russellian-j]

Bertrand Russell Quotes 366 with images, n3156 (June 22, 2025)

An individual human existence should be like a river: small at first, narrowly contained within its banks, and rushing passionately past rocks and over waterfalls. Gradually the river grows wider, the banks recede, the waters flow more quietly, and in the end, without any visible break, they become merged in the sea, and painlessly lose their individual being. The man who, in old age, can see his life in this way, will not suffer from the fear of death, since the things he cares for will continue. And if, with the decay of vitality, weariness increases, the thought of rest will not be unwelcome. 　Source: Bertrand Russell: How to grow old, 1951 [In: Portraits from Memory and Other Essays, 1956 　More info.: https://russell-j.com/beginner/0958HTGO-040.HTM

a brief comment: Bertrand Russell is one of the leading thinkers of Western rationalism, but the view of life and death expressed in "Today's Words of Russell" may resonate with many people in the East as well. Russell was an avid reader of classical Chinese texts, including those of Laozi and Zhuangzi, and he stayed in China from October 1920 to early July 1921. Furthermore, in July 1921, on his way back to his home country, the United Kingdom, he also stayed in Japan for about two weeks.

[russellian-j]

バートランド・ラッセルの言葉366_画像版 n.3156j (June 22, 2025)

　個々の人間の存在は、川のようなものであるべきだ。最初は小さく、狭い土手の間を流れ、岩を過ぎ、滝を越えて、激しい勢いで進んで行く。次第に川幅は広がり、土手は遠ざかり、水はより静かに流れ、ついには目に見える中断も抵抗もなく、海へと流れ込み、苦しむことなく，その個としての存在を失う。老年になって、自分の人生をこのように見られる人は、死の恐怖で苦しまないであろう。なぜなら、彼（彼女）が気にかけえきたものごとは存在し続けるからである。そして、生命力の減退とともに倦怠感が増すならば、休息したいとの思いは歓迎されざるものではないだろう。 An individual human existence should be like a river: small at first, narrowly contained within its banks, and rushing passionately past rocks and over waterfalls. Gradually the river grows wider, the banks recede, the waters flow more quietly, and in the end, without any visible break, they become merged in the sea, and painlessly lose their individual being. The man who, in old age, can see his life in this way, will not suffer from the fear of death, since the things he cares for will continue. And if, with the decay of vitality, weariness increases, the thought of rest will not be unwelcome. 　Source: Bertrand Russell: How to grow old, 1951 [In: Portraits from Memory and Other Essays, 1956 　More info.: 　https://russell-j.com/beginner/0958HTGO-040.HTM

＜寸言＞ 　バートランド・ラッセルは西洋合理主義の代表的な思想家の一人ですが、「本日のラッセルの言葉」で述べられている死生観は、東洋人にも共感できる人が多いのではないでしょうか。ラッセルは、老荘を始めとする中国の古典を広く愛読しており、1920年10月から1921年7月上旬まで中国に滞在しました。さらに、1921年７月には、母国英国への帰途、日本にも約２週間滞在しています。

[russellian-j]

バートランド・ラッセルの言葉366_画像版 n.3155j (June 21, 2025)

　自分の賢さにまったく疑いを持たない人々から、「老年になれば、心は穏やかになり、より広い視野で、一見悪に見えるものも最終的には善をもたらす手段と見なせるようになるはずだ」と、自信満々に言い聞かされることがしばしばある。しかし、私はそのような見方を一切受け入れることができない。心の平穏は、現代の世界においては、盲目になるか、あるいは冷酷になることによってしか得られない。

One is frequently assured by men who have no doubt of their own wisdom that old age should bring serenity and a larger vision in which seeming evils are viewed as means to ultimate good. I cannot accept any such view. Serenity, in the present world, can only be achieved through blindness or brutality. 　Source: The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, v.3. 　More info.:　 https://russell-j.com/smart_r366/r366g_j0247.html

＜寸言＞ 　多くの人々が「歳をとったら些細なことにこだわらず、穏やかに晩年を過ごしたい」と思うようになります。もちろん、「歳をとる」とは何歳頃を指すかは人によって異なります。たとえば、「停年退職して年金暮らしになったら・・・」とか、「70歳になったら・・・」とか、「75歳の後期高齢者になったら・・・」というように、人によって意識は異なります。 　ラッセルの場合は、死ぬまで、世界の出来事に関心を持ち続け、関与すべきだと考えた時には関与し、また、２つの財団（note: The Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation と Atlantic Peace Foundation）を設立し、世界平和及び弱い立場にある人々の救済に尽力しました。 　ただし、ラッセルも、歳をとるにつれて、やはり平穏に老後暮らしたいという気持ちが強くなり、北ウェールズの田舎に別荘を持ち、仕事の時はロンドンに行き、それ以外は北ウェールズで過ごすことが多くなりました。（注：ラッセルは、1953年81歳の時に、ロンドン郊外に４階建ての家を購入し、1、2階を長男一家に使わせました。） 　ラッセルは、英国時間で1970年２月２日（約97歳10ケ月）の時、北ウェールズのプラスペンリンの自宅で死亡しましたが、カイロにおける世界国会議員会議( the International Conference of Parliamentarians in Cairo, Feb. 1970）にあてたバートランド・ラッセルのメッセージ(1970年2月1日付）は、パレスティナ問題について、今日でも目を見張らせるものです。

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

His final message, dated February 1, 1970, addressed to the International Conference of Parliamentarians in Cairo (February 1970) 　パレスチナの人々の悲劇は、彼らの国が、外国の権力によって、別の民族に「与えられ」、新しい国家がつくられたことにある。その結果、何十万もの罪のない人々が、永続的に故郷を失ったのである。そして紛争が起こるたびに、その数は増え続けている。 このような無分別な残酷さの光景を、世界はこれ以上いつまで耐え続けるつもりなのだろうか。 　難民たちには、自分たちが追い出された故郷に帰る権利が明らかにある。その権利を否定することこそが、現在の争いの核心なのである。 世界中のどの国の人々も、自らの国から一括して追放されることを受け入れることなどありえない。ではなぜ、パレスチナの人々だけが、他の誰も容認しないような罰を受け入れなければならないというのか。 難民が自らの故郷に正当に定住できるようにすることは、中東におけるいかなる真の解決のためにも不可欠の要素である。 　ナチスによるヨーロッパでのユダヤ人迫害の苦しみを理由に、我々はイスラエルに同情すべきだと、私たちはたびたび言われる。だが私は、この主張の中に、いかなる苦しみの永続も正当化する根拠を見いだせない。 イスラエルが今日行っていることは���容認されてはならない。過去の悲劇を持ち出して現在の不正を正当化しようとするのは、まさに厚顔無恥な偽善である。イスラエルは、数多くの難民を苦難の生活に閉じ込めるだけでなく、多くのアラブ人を軍事占領のもとにおき、また、ようやく植民地支配から解放されたばかりのアラブ諸国を、軍事的要求のせいで開発が阻まれるという困窮状態に追い込んでいる。 　中東での流血に終止符を打ちたいと願うすべての人々は、今後いかなる和平合意も、将来の対立の火種を含んではならないことを確信しなければならない。 正義の要求する第一歩は、1967年6月に占領されたすべての領土から、イスラエルが撤退することである。

The tragedy of the people of Palestine is that their country was “given” by a foreign Power to another people for the creation of a new State. The result was that many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made permanently homeless. With every new conflict their number have increased. How much longer is the world willing to endure this spectacle of wanton cruelty? It is abundantly clear that the refugees have every right to the homeland from which they were driven, and the denial of this right is at the heart of the continuing conflict. No people anywhere in the world would accept being expelled en masse from their own country; how can anyone require the people of Palestine to accept a punishment which nobody else would tolerate? A permanent just settlement of the refugees in their homeland is an essential ingredient of any genuine settlement in the Middle East. We are frequently told that we must sympathize with Israel because of the suffering of the Jews in Europe at the hands of the Nazis. I see in this suggestion no reason to perpetuate any suffering. What Israel is doing today cannot be condoned, and to invoke the horrors of the past to justify those of the present is gross hypocrisy. Not only does Israel condemn a vast number. of refugees to misery; not only are many Arabs under occupation condemned to military rule; but also Israel condemns the Arab nations only recently emerging from colonial status, to continued impoverishment as military demands take precedence over national development. All who want to see an end to bloodshed in the Middle East must ensure that any settlement does not contain the seeds of future conflict. Justice requires that the first step towards a settlement must be an Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied in June, 1967.

[russellian-j]

Bertrand Russell Quotes 366 with images, n3155 (June 21, 2025)

One is frequently assured by men who have no doubt of their own wisdom that old age should bring serenity and a larger vision in which seeming evils are viewed as means to ultimate good. I cannot accept any such view. Serenity, in the present world, can only be achieved through blindness or brutality. 　Source: The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, v.3. 　More info.: https://russell-j.com/smart_r366/r366g_j0247.html

a brief comment: Many people come to feel, as they grow older, that they would like to spend their later years peacefully, without being overly concerned about trivial matters. Of course, what age one considers to be "old" varies from person to person. For example, some may think of it as the time after mandatory retirement when one begins living on a pension; others may think of it as beginning at the age of 70; still others may associate it with turning 75 and becoming officially classified as "late elderly." In short, people's perceptions differ. In Bertrand Russell's case, however, he remained concerned with world affairs until his death. Whenever he felt involvement was necessary, he took action. He also founded two organizations, the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation and the Atlantic Peace Foundation, and dedicated himself to the cause of world peace and to helping those in vulnerable positions. That said, as Russell aged, he too increasingly desired a peaceful retirement. He maintained a country home in rural North Wales, spending most of his time there except when work required him to be in London. (Note: In 1953, at the age of 81, Russell purchased a four-storey house in the suburbs of London, allowing his eldest son's family to use the first and second floors.) Russell died at his home in Plas Penrhyn, North Wales, on February 2, 1970 (British time), at the age of approximately 97 years and 10 months. His final message, dated February 1, 1970, addressed to the International Conference of Parliamentarians in Cairo (February 1970), remains striking even today in its insight into the Palestinian issue.

His final message, dated February 1, 1970, addressed to the International Conference of Parliamentarians in Cairo (February 1970)

The tragedy of the people of Palestine is that their country was “given” by a foreign Power to another people for the creation of a new State. The result was that many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made permanently homeless. With every new conflict their number have increased. How much longer is the world willing to endure this spectacle of wanton cruelty? It is abundantly clear that the refugees have every right to the homeland from which they were driven, and the denial of this right is at the heart of the continuing conflict. No people anywhere in the world would accept being expelled en masse from their own country; how can anyone require the people of Palestine to accept a punishment which nobody else would tolerate? A permanent just settlement of the refugees in their homeland is an essential ingredient of any genuine settlement in the Middle East. We are frequently told that we must sympathize with Israel because of the suffering of the Jews in Europe at the hands of the Nazis. I see in this suggestion no reason to perpetuate any suffering. What Israel is doing today cannot be condoned, and to invoke the horrors of the past to justify those of the present is gross hypocrisy. Not only does Israel condemn a vast number. of refugees to misery; not only are many Arabs under occupation condemned to military rule; but also Israel condemns the Arab nations only recently emerging from colonial status, to continued impoverishment as military demands take precedence over national development. All who want to see an end to bloodshed in the Middle East must ensure that any settlement does not contain the seeds of future conflict. Justice requires that the first step towards a settlement must be an Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied in June, 1967.

[russellian-j]

Bertrand Russell Quotes 366 with images, n3154 (June 20, 2025)

Reason, as it is preached by traditional moralists, is too of negative, too little living, to make a good life. It is not by reason alone that wars can be prevented, but by a positive life of impulses and passions antagonistic to those that lead to war. It is the life of impulse that needs to be changed, not only the life of conscious thought. 　Source: Principles of Social Reconstruction, 1916 　More info.: https://russell-j.com/cool/10T-0101.HTM

a brief comment: Since the emergence of President Trump, however, the United States has undergone a major transformation. That is to say, America has moved away from its traditional role as a global leader, and President Trump has made it clear that he prioritizes immediate national interest over alliances or international cooperation. He has shown a sense of affinity for authoritarian figures such as Kim Jong-un of North Korea and Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel. As for democracy, he gives the impression of treating it as nothing more than a "policy" advocated by the Democratic Party, which he openly opposes. Under the slogan "Make America Great Again" (MAGA), President Trump has rejected globalism and, under an "America First" agenda, pursued foreign policy based on "deals" designed to benefit the United States. However, these deals are not conducted on equal footing; they are structured to ensure America's advantage from the outset. Accordingly, he dislikes multilateral negotiations like those at the G7 summit. At the most recent G7 meeting, for example, he attended only the first day and returned home early, giving what seemed to be a plausible explanation. What, then, is the driving force behind President Trump? He does not appear to be guided by any consistent ideology or philosophy. In fact, his remarks and policies show little sign of coherent political thought; rather, they often seem to be driven by emotional reactions and a desire for personal retaliation. One of his key motivations appears to be a strong desire for power and dominance, and another, whose origin is less clear, seems to be a deep, persistent anger. Seen in this light, Bertrand Russell's claim that reason alone cannot restrain human excess no longer feels like an outdated notion. Today's "Words of Russell" may offer profound insight into how we might confront those in power in our own time.

[russellian-j]

バートランド・ラッセルの言葉366_画像版 n.3154j (June 20, 2025)

　伝統的な道徳家たちが説くような理性は、あまりに消極的で、生気に乏しく、それによっては良い人生を築くことはできない。戦争を防ぐことができるのは、理性のみによってではなく、戦争をもたらす衝動や情熱に対抗する、積極的な衝動と情熱のある生活によってである。変える必要があるのは、単に意識的な思考の生活だけでなく、衝動に根ざした生の在り方そのものである。

Reason, as it is preached by traditional moralists, is too of negative, too little living, to make a good life. It is not by reason alone that wars can be prevented, but by a positive life of impulses and passions antagonistic to those that lead to war. It is the life of impulse that needs to be changed, not only the life of conscious thought. 　Source: Principles of Social Reconstruction, 1916 　More info.:　 https://russell-j.com/cool/10T-0101.HTM

＜寸言＞ 　以前は、理性と感性（感情）を対比させて考えたり、「知・情・意」の三つの視点が重要だと言われたりすることがよくありました。また、狂信的な態度をとる人も、相対的に減ってきたように感じられました。そのため、民主主義的な態度は、中国やロシアのような国々にも、時が経過すればするほど徐々に広がっていくだろうと、私も考えていました。たとえば、北朝鮮の金正恩（キム・ジョンウン）が軍国主義的な態度で周辺国を威圧しても、万一他国を侵略するようなことがあれば、あっというまに米軍によって鎮圧されるだろうと、私も思っていました。 　けれども、トランプ大統領の登場以後、アメリカも大きく変貌しました。即ち、アメリカは従来のリーダー国家としての立場から大きく姿を変え、トランプ大統領は、同盟や国際的協調よりも、自国の直接的な利益を最優先する立場を明確にしています。また、トランプ大統領は、北朝鮮のキム・ジョンウンやイスラエルのネタニヤフ首相のような強権的な人物に親近感を示しています。民主主義についても、それを自らが敵視する民主党の「政策」にすぎないかのように扱っているかの印象を与えます。 　トランプ大統領は、MAGA（Make America Great Again）を合言葉に、グローバリズムを捨て、アメリカ第一主義の政策のもと、他国とは「ディール（取引）」によって自国の利益をはかるようになりました。ただし、他国との「ディール（取引）」は、対等な立場での「ディール」ではなく、あくまでも自国を有利な立場に置いた上での「ディール」です。従って、G7のような場での集団交渉は好まず、先日開催されたG7の会議も、もっともらしい理由付けをして初日だけ参加してすぐに帰国してしまいました。 　それでは、トランプ大統領の原動力は何でしょうか？　何らかの思想（哲学）に基づいているようには見えません。実際、彼の発言や政策には一貫した政治哲学はほとんど見られず、むしろ感情的な反応や対人関係への報復が動機となっている場面が目立ちます。 　こうした状況を踏まえれば、理性だけでは人間の暴走を止められないというラッセルの主張が、決して過去の話ではないことがよくわかります。今日の「ラッセルの言葉」は、まさに現代における権力者との向き合い方に深い示唆を与えてくれるのではないでしょうか？

In the past, people often contrasted reason with emotion (or sensibility), and the threefold perspective of cognition, emotion, and volition was frequently emphasized. At the same time, it seemed that people with fanatical attitudes were becoming relatively fewer. For these reasons, I came to believe that democratic values would gradually spread even in countries like China and Russia as time went on. I also assumed that even if North Korea's Kim Jong-un showed militaristic behavior and threatened neighboring countries, any actual invasion would be swiftly suppressed by U.S. forces. Since the emergence of President Trump, however, the United States has undergone a major transformation. That is to say, America has moved away from its traditional role as a global leader, and President Trump has made it clear that he prioritizes immediate national interest over alliances or international cooperation. He has shown a sense of affinity for authoritarian figures such as Kim Jong-un of North Korea and Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel. As for democracy, he gives the impression of treating it as nothing more than a "policy" advocated by the Democratic Party, which he openly opposes. Under the slogan "Make America Great Again" (MAGA), President Trump has rejected globalism and, under an "America First" agenda, pursued foreign policy based on "deals" designed to benefit the United States. However, these deals are not conducted on equal footing; they are structured to ensure America's advantage from the outset. Accordingly, he dislikes multilateral negotiations like those at the G7 summit. At the most recent G7 meeting, for example, he attended only the first day and returned home early, giving what seemed to be a plausible explanation. What, then, is the driving force behind President Trump? He does not appear to be guided by any consistent ideology or philosophy. In fact, his remarks and policies show little sign of coherent political thought; rather, they often seem to be driven by emotional reactions and a desire for personal retaliation. One of his key motivations appears to be a strong desire for power and dominance, and another, whose origin is less clear, seems to be a deep, persistent anger. Seen in this light, Bertrand Russell's claim that reason alone cannot restrain human excess no longer feels like an outdated notion. Today's "Words of Russell" may offer profound insight into how we might confront those in power in our own time.

[russellian-j]

バートランド・ラッセルの言葉366_画像版 n.3153j (June 19, 2025)

　日本は、中国と異なり、宗教的な国（注：物事を余り疑わない国民からなる国）である。中国人は証明されない限り人の言うことを疑うが、日本人はそれが偽（注：間違い・誤解あるいは嘘）であると証明されるまで信用する。 Japan, unlike China, is a religious country. The Chinese doubt a proposition until it is proved to be true; the Japanese believe until it is proved to be false. 　Source: The Problem of China 1922, p169 (George Allen and Unwin ed.)]

　＜寸言＞ 　「本日のラッセルの言葉」（添付画像参照）は、たった２行の短い文章ですが、その含意が十分に伝わらない恐れがあると考え、一行ごとに注をつけてみました。注がないと、特に「日本は中国と異なり宗教的な国である。」を読むや否や、「現代の日本人で宗教を本当に信じている人は少数だ！」といった反論する人もでてきそうです。 　もちろん、中国は多民族国家であり、「中国人の国民性」を一括りに語るのは困難です。ただし、多数派を占める漢民族や、歴史的な文化的傾向に限って言えば、ラッセルの指摘には一定の妥当性があるように思われます。 　共産主義体制の下で価値観が変化した面を少なくないと思われますが、農村部を中心に、従来の民衆の考え方や価値観がいまだに残っている部分もあるのではないでしょうか？

The "Quote of the Day from Russell" (see attached image) consists of just two short lines, but I thought its implications might not be fully understood, so I added a note to each sentence. Without such notes, especially upon reading the line "Japan, unlike China, is a religious country," some might immediately respond, "But very few people in modern Japan truly believe in religion!" Of course, China is a multi-ethnic country, and it is difficult to generalize about the "national character of the Chinese." However, if we focus on the Han majority and certain historical cultural tendencies, Russell's observation seems to carry a degree of validity. While values have changed in many respects under the communist regime, it seems that traditional attitudes and ways of thinking still persist to some extent, particularly in rural areas.

[russellian-j]

Bertrand Russell Quotes 366 with images, n3153 (June 19, 2025)

Japan, unlike China, is a religious country. The Chinese doubt a proposition until it is proved to be true; the Japanese believe until it is proved to be false. 　Source: The Problem of China 1922, p169 (George Allen and Unwin ed.)]

a brief comment: The "Quote of the Day from Russell" (see attached image) consists of just two short lines, but I thought its implications might not be fully understood, so I added a note to each sentence. Without such notes, especially upon reading the line "Japan, unlike China, is a religious country," some might immediately respond, "But very few people in modern Japan truly believe in religion!" Of course, China is a multi-ethnic country, and it is difficult to generalize about the "national character of the Chinese." However, if we focus on the Han majority and certain historical cultural tendencies, Russell's observation seems to carry a degree of validity. While values have changed in many respects under the communist regime, it seems that traditional attitudes and ways of thinking still persist to some extent, particularly in rural areas.

[russellian-j]

バートランド・ラッセルの言葉366_画像版 n.3152j (June 18, 2019)

　最良の人生とはその大部分が（様々な）創造的衝動に基づいて築かれているものであり、最悪の人生とはその大部分が所有欲によって動機付けられているものである、と私は考える。 I consider the best life that which is most built on creative impulses, and the worst that which is most inspired by love of possession. 　Source: Preface to Principles of Social Construction, 1916 More info.: 　https://russell-j.com/cool/10T-PREF.HTM

　＜寸言＞ 　ラッセルは『教育論－特に幼児期における』（1926年）で次のように述べています。 「破壊のほうが容易なので、子供の遊びは通常、破壊で始まり、少し大きくなってはじめて建設へと移っていく。（Destruction being easier, a child's games usually begin with it, and only pass on to construction at a later stage. 」

　近年のトランプ大統領の言動を見ると、ラッセルのこの言葉がすぐに思い浮かびます。トランプ大統領は、まるで精神的に成長していない子どものように、制度や秩序を破壊することには熱心でも、多くの人々が納得できるような、建設的な方向への姿勢は見られません。 「子ども」という表現が不適切だとすれば、自分の権力を誇示せずにはいられない衝動を抑えられない「暴君」と呼ぶ方がふさわしいでしょうか？　どんなに嫌われようと、大統領の職にあるうちに最高権力者としての力を世界中の人々に見せつけたいという権力衝動をコントロールできないらしいと言った方がよさそうです。 　「本日のラッセルの言葉」（添付画像参照）は世界中の人々によって引用・紹介されてきました。日本でも大正時代からよく引用されています（例えば、与謝野晶子）。

Bertrand Russell states the following in On Education, Especially in Early Childhood (1926): "Destruction being easier, a child's games usually begin with it, and only pass on to construction at a later stage."

When we observe President Trump's recent words and actions, Russell's remark immediately comes to mind. Like a child who has not matured emotionally, Trump seems eager to tear down systems and institutions, yet shows little inclination toward constructive efforts that could earn the trust and agreement of the broader public. If calling him a "child" is deemed inappropriate, perhaps it would be more fitting to describe him as a "tyrant", someone unable to suppress his compulsion to flaunt power. That is, he appears driven by a desire to display the authority of the presidency to the world, regardless of how much he may be disliked, and seems incapable of controlling this impulse. The quote featured in Today's Words from Russell (see attached image) is one that has been cited and shared by people around the world. In Japan, too, it has often been quoted since the Taisho era, for example, by Akiko Yosano.