2. Byronic Unhappiness

"It is common in our day, as it has been in so many other periods of the world's history, to suppose that those among us who are wise enough have seen through all the enthusiasms of earlier times and have become aware that there is nothing left to live for. ... I do not myself believe that there is any superior rationality in being unhappy. The wise man will be as happy as circumstances permit, and if he finds the contemplation of the universe painful beyond a point, he will contemplate something else instead. ... I wish to persuade the reader that, whatever the arguments may be, reason lays no embargo upon happiness." [page 24]

Russell points to Lord Byron as a proponent of this view, which he says was put forward "for all time" by the author of Ecclesiastes, who said "all is vanity and a vexation of spirit". Russell makes a distinction between having a mood where all effort seems vain, and holding the philosophical position that there is no value in life.

"I have frequently experienced myself the mood in which I felt that all is vanity; I have emerged from it not by any philosophy, but owing to some imperative necessity of action. If your child is ill, you may be unhappy, but you will not feel that all is vanity; you will feel that the restoring of the child to health is a matter to be attended to regardless of the question of whether there is ultimate value in human life or not. ... The feeling is one born of a too easy satisfaction of natural needs. The human animal, like others, is adapted to a certain amount of struggle for life, and when by means of great wealth homo sapiens can gratify all his whims without effort, the mere absence of effort from his life removes an essential ingredient of happiness. The man who acquires easily things for which he feels only a very moderate desire concludes that the attainment of desire does not bring happiness. If he is of a philosophic disposition, he concludes that human life is essentially wretched, since the man who has all he wants is still unhappy. He forgets that to be without some of the things you want is an indispensable part of happiness." [page 27]

He sums up the intellectual argument of Ecclesiastes as follows: "Over and over again in an endless, purposeless cycle men and things are born and die without improvement, without permanent achievement, day after day, year after year." [page 28] And he responds: "The habit of looking to the future and thinking that the whole meaning of the present lies in what it will bring forth is a pernicious one. ... Life is not to be conceived on the analogy of a melodrama in which the hero and heroine go through incredible misfortunes for which they are compensated by a happy ending. I live and have my day, my son succeeds me and has his day, his son in turn succeeds him. What is there in all this to make a tragedy about?" [page 29]

The hidden issue in this chapter is hope. Ecclesiastes says there is no reasonable basis for hope, and Russell's response in this chapter is that hope is not absolutely necessary for a happy life. Later in Conquest Russell introduces a transpersonal notion of hope that completes his answer to Ecclesiastes. I have collected these ideas under the theme Transcending Personal Hopes and Interests.