Journal articles on the topic 'Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation'

In 2009 the magazine Prospect published an interview with Paul McCartney in which he described a 1966 meeting with philosopher Bertrand Russell (Power 2009). McCartney recalled discussing Russell’s moral objections to the war in Vietnam and later reporting these back to the other Beatles in terms that impressed them, at a time when they had yet to become vocal on the subject. Press reaction was largely derisory, couched in terms that prompted the article’s author to publicly criticize a pattern of reflexive misrepresentation of McCartney in the press. Typically, journalists scorned McCartney’s account, to the extent of doubting that a meeting with Bertrand Russell occurred at all. McCartney was widely accused of rewriting history to cast himself in the kind of political and intellectual role more typically accorded to John Lennon. We attempt to clarify this dispute with reference to documentary and anecdotal sources, finding independent evidence not only that this meeting occurred but also that, upon learning that McCartney was pursuing an anti-war film vehicle for the Beatles, Bertrand Russell actively facilitated a meeting between McCartney and novelist and producer/screenwriter Len Deighton; in the same time frame McCartney was meeting with civil rights and Vietnam war crimes activist Mark Lane, then a director of Bertrand Russell’s Peace Foundation, to discuss the New York attorney’s controversial book on the Kennedy assassination, the film version of which McCartney subsequently offered to score. The fact that McCartney was apparently alone in pursuing projects of this sort at this time, months before film director Dick Lester announced John Lennon’s acceptance of a part in How I Won the War , is in tension with popular narratives in which he is portrayed as a follower and superficial tunesmith. Journalistic accusations of dishonesty on the part of McCartney in 2008 are here examined and rebutted, and specific questions raised about the claimed timeline of events in 1966 are addressed in detail. The argument is of obvious interest in Beatles historiography, as accusations of self-serving revisionism on the part of McCartney have become a commonplace of fan criticism, especially since the death of Lennon. More generally, it speaks in a timely way to wider concerns about declining journalistic professionalism and integrity (Newman and Fletcher 2017), and related issues of poor media literacy and an increasing public mistrust of traditional news and opinion sources (Gibson et al. 2022). This article was published open access under a CC BY licence: https://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0 .

In her dedicated promotion of feminism and pacifism, especially during the 1930s, Vera Brittain (1893–1970) was strongly influenced by Ber­trand Russell’s writings, especially Marriage and Morals (1929) and Which Way to Peace? (1936). Both were members of the Peace Pledge Union, and she continued as a sponsor after Russell abandoned his pac­ifism soon after the beginning of the Second World War. She admired his political and social activism in the aftermath of that war, endorsing it as much as her family situation allowed; and, as chairman of the Peace News board, Brittain intervened in Russell’s support when a dispute broke out between him and the editor. Although their rela­tionship was personally limited, Russell’s influence on her opinions and actions was profound.

In 1948, Bertrand Russell and Frederick Copleston entertained us with a radiophonic debate, on the BBC, concerning the rational proofs of God’s existence. This debate is primarily a product of Authors’ mindset. In this sense, every argument on each side presupposes a universal reason from which human intellect can grasp a certain degree of truth. Therefore, we would expect that the debate 75 years old to be outdated. Or maybe, Russell’s agnostic position could, at first sight, seem to be more aligned with a contemporary post-modern mindset than Copleston’s theism. However, we disagree with the aforementioned thesis. We will not argue that Copleston won the debate by means of reason alone. We will rather show that both positions emerge from different ontologies. And these ones are intertwined with specific narratives and its respective ways of life. For that matter, the Russell-Copleston debate substantiates the thesis of Radical Orthodoxy. Deep down, John Milbank’s “ontology of peace,” as opposed to the Nietzschean nihilism, emerges from this debate. In this sense, while Copleston’s argumentation grounds this narrative on an ontology of peace, Russell tends to follow in a nihilism capable of destroying the communion between different persons. In this sense, the debate is still up to date.

A translation of an article by the great British philosopher Bertrand Russell on the conceptualisation of the philosophical foundations of epistemology is presented. It formulates key definitions and justifies the methodological principles on the basis of which will be possible to construct theories consistent with the ideas of empiricism and the concept of knowledge by acquaintance. Drawing on concrete examples as well as the theses on the logical conditioning of the methods of cognition, Russell lays the foundation for the theory of neutral monism, which became the basis of his epistemological ideas in the early period of his work.

In the contemporary philosophy and more specifically in philosophy of language, one of the essential issues of philosophical studies is the relationship between language, the World and knowledge about the world. Bertrand Russell as one of the leaders in logical analysis in contemporary philosophy considers logical foundation as significant pillar for language. He defines language, meaning knowledge in the context of logic and he forms the world in the logical facts. From here, a link between language and reality will be created, and thus there is an intention to break the other traditions. Bertrand Russell tried to write many books and essays and his literary heritage has become an important asset in philosophical discourses. This study aims under the Russell’s arguments to analyze the relationship between language and the world. It attempts from a different perspective to reach a different form of existence and world. This purpose helps in language activities in manifesting correct knowledge about the world that it has facts, events, state of affairs, reality and logic. Russell's attempts to connect between language and reality in the world produced many valuable arguments and thesis. This is on the foundation of logical analysis changes language to propositions and changes the world to facts instead of things. In addition, arranges all theories about meaning, descriptions, proper names and knowledge through the atomic propositions. Furthermore, he based his understanding to the external world, existing of things and the relations between them on logical language.

In Writings on Cities Henri Lefebvre calls for a ‘renewed right to urban life’. He maintains that ‘we must thus make the effort to reach out towards a new humanism, a new praxis, another man, that of urban society’. City spaces are used in a number of contemporary Irish site-specific theatre productions to explore histories of oppression and social injustice, and to imagine a new humanist praxis for society. The international multi-artform production The Conquest of Happiness (2013) was inspired by Bertrand Russell’s commitment to human happiness in defiance of war and suffering in his book The Conquest of Happiness (1930) and in his many political and philosophical writings. In this article Eva Urban critically examines the ways in which the performance in Northern Ireland attempted to embody Russell’s humanism and related critical concepts to encourage active citizenship. She considers to what extent the dramaturgical options employed inthe production applied Russell’s ideas and those of other thinkers by developing critical representations of inhumanity, challenging authoritarianism, and exploring humanist ideals. Eva Urban is a British Academy Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the Faculty of English, University of Cambridge, and an Associate of Clare Hall, Cambridge. She is theauthor of Community Politics and the Peace Process in Contemporary Northern Irish Drama (Peter Lang, 2011) and her articles on political drama and Irish studies have been published in New Theatre Quarterly, Etudes Irlandaises, and Caleidoscopio.

The general editorial plan behind The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell calls for two parallel series, one concerned with Russell's work on philosophy, logic and mathematics, the other with his less technical contributions in areas such as politics, practical ethics, history and education. Volume 1, sub-titled Cambridge Essays, 1888–99, is in a sense the ancestral volume of both series, for it comprises both technical and non-technical subjects. Russell appears here as diarist, public speaker, political commentator, as well as apprentice philosopher and expert on non-Euclidian geometries. The Collected Papers as a whole will span the more than 80 years of Russell's writings devoted to a formidable range of topics from the personal to the highly abstract but, large as it is, this publishing project will make no attempt to bring together the totality of his writings, since many of these remain in print and are readily available. Instead, the project's distinct emphasis will be on Russell's shorter writings, such as essays, articles, reviews and speeches, which are not so easily located, even when previously published. Grouped together in convenient subdivisions, these papers will chronicle for us Russell's intellectual and social growth to an extent even greater than that attempted by Russell himself in his three-volume Autobiography or in My Philosophical Development, and they will also serve to acquaint us with the thoughts, feelings and attitudes of the venerable figure behind the well-known major books. The project's essential aim, then, is to mine and refine the vast Russell Archives in a way that will yield a permanent foundation of study for anyone, whether mere admirer or life-long scholar, who has any interest in Russell's life and work.

The Russell Paradox is a classic problem in mathematical logic that challenges the underlying basics of set theory and the concept of infinity. This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the paradox, including its history, development, and recent research. The paradox arises from the set whose members are sets not containing themselves, which results in being contradictory. Bertrand Russell and Ernst Zermelo proposed early solutions, while the axiomatic set theory provided a rigorous foundation for mathematics. Recent studies suggest alternative solutions, including distinguishing between object-language and meta-language and introducing a new concept called a "Russell-class." This paper summarizes the history of the paradox, summarizes recent studies, and presents a framework for understanding and evaluating solutions. According to the analysis, it aims to deepen the understanding of the paradoxical situation and why it is of enormous importance for the underlying basics of mathematics. This paradox remains a subject of intense study and continues to inspire the development of various theories and frameworks to resolve it. Overall, these results shed light on guiding further exploration of the paradoxical situation and its enormous importance for the underlying basics of mathematics. They also present a framework for understanding and evaluating solutions, with the goal of deepening our understanding of the paradox and inspiring the development of various theories and frameworks to resolve the issue.

Bertrand Russell won Nobel Prize for arguing that science has triumphed over religion. Since religions are based on god, Russell’s argument implies that science has triumphed over both religion and god. But neither Russell nor anyone else has ever defined religion and god, rationally. The assertion about triumph of science (which is founded on rationality) over concepts such as religion and god (which are not defined rationally or scientifically in the extant literature) cannot be rational. This paper offers a novel rational philosophical foundation for the concepts of god, religion and science in which the claim that science triumphs over religion is redundant. This paper also presents substantial new insights about epistemic truths to help resolve current problems facing humanity like financial moral hazard and terrorism which have unnerved nations worldwide. The humanity now begs to answer a fundamental question of how we can govern ourselves. This paper offers a coherent set of credible answers. In particular, it offers a coherent unified philosophy about how humans have universally formed beliefs to govern themselves and how this philosophy could help resolve current problems. The universal rendering of beliefs articulated here subsumes the extant characterization of probability beliefs in mathematics, science, engineering, economics, religion and philosophy. The universal beliefs so articulated in this paper obviate the currently prevalent philosophical conflicts between religion and science or between theism and atheism and paves the way for optimal governance for prosperity amid stability. This philosophy also offers a rational characterization of the spiritual notion of Nirvana or salvation of the soul and the notion of epistemic truth. The unifying philosophy can help humanity achieve unity, stability and prosperity, sans financial moral hazard, antagonism, wars, nuclear proliferation, global warming and atmospheric pollution.

One of the many divisions of security exposed in the literature dealing with it is the ambivalent division into positive and negative security, which sometimes, somehow combined and mutually limiting, manifest themselves in normal and real security. Starting from this distinction, I develop their descriptions based on Erich Fromm’s explanations of a healthy, sick, and normal society. Simultaneously, I argue that sick societies pursue negative security by preferring war and destruction, while healthy societies pursue positive security by preferring love, peace, and creative activity. It is a preference based on striving, in the case of a healthy society and positive security, “to be”, as Fromm states, and in the case of a sick society and negative security, “to have”, and finally, in the case of normal security, to mutually limiting “to have” and “to be”. I deepen this description by referring to the thought of Bertrand Russell, in which positive and good security is defined “as one that should be by itself”, and negative and bad “as one that should not be by itself”. On the other hand, by bolding and broadening this description, I associate positive security (based on “to be”) with the concept of “civilisation of love”, “civilization of life”, and “civilization of brotherhood”, while negative security (embedded in “to have”) with “civilisation of killing”, “civilisation of overkilling”, and “civilisation of death”, and finally, normal security (embedded on mutually limiting “to be” and “to have”) with the liberal civilisation of security and control.

THE GOD OF CHANCE AND PURPOSE: Divine Involvement in a Secular Evolutionary World by Bradford McCall. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2022. 156 pages. Paperback; $24.00. ISBN: 9781725283831. *Bradford McCall is a young but prolific scholar, having completed his PhD in 2022 at the Claremont School of Theology, yet having published five books and about fifty articles. In this slim volume of six chapters, McCall proposes the elements of a complementary relationship between science, particularly evolutionary biology, and Christian faith. His proposal is rooted in a panentheistic theology of God that I will consider further below. On a first reading, I confess that I often lost the thread of McCall's argument amid his dense prose and fascinating tangents. On my rereading of the book, I distilled from the concluding chapter an outline of McCall's argument, so as to maintain a sense of direction throughout chapters 1-5. *The relation between science and theology is broadly considered in chapter 1, using the typology of Mikael Stenmark. McCall then proposes that science and theology overlap in terms of both social practice and subject matter. A metaphysical monist, he does not distinguish between mental and physical processes. This connects with the assertion (via Arthur Peacocke) that there is no "causal joint" to look for, either in solving the mind-body problem or in a theory of divine action. McCall is influenced by process philosophy and proposes panexperientialism--the idea that everything, from people to fundamental particles, has experience, a "subjective interiority." This is not to say that electrons think, nor does McCall tend toward anthropomorphism, but his is not the disenchanted universe of Jacques Monod. His theology of God is "intermediate between the omnipotent God of classical theism and the absentee god of deism" (p. 9). God, in this view, is "persuasive, not coercive" toward the creation. McCall views complex phenomena as emergent, invoking John Haught's notion of "layered explanations" that operate simultaneously without conflict. *The second chapter offers a consideration of evolutionary thought and the philosophy of biology--common ancestry, selectionism, adaptationism, and units of selection. Subtle controversies are investigated, such as the falsifiability of adaptationism, pluralism as an alternative, and the concept of spandrels introduced by Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin. This was deep and informative reading. In some ways, it was my favorite chapter; yet it seems disconnected from the thread of McCall's overall argument. *McCall's third chapter is entitled "The God of Chance," but oddly contains no discussion of God. Rather, he investigates how scientific thought has developed the idea of chance. As a twenty-first-century scientist, I take statistical reasoning for granted. It had never occurred to me that biologists in Darwin's time would lack this category of reasoning. Let me digress for a moment to make a connection with physics, since that is my own area. The theory of statistical mechanics developed rapidly between 1857 and 1905. In 1859, the same year Darwin published On the Origin of Species, James Clerk Maxwell presented a paper in which he described the random motions of gas molecules with the distribution that now bears his name. This history is well summarized in a 1997 paper by Dieter Flamm.1 It should therefore not have surprised me to learn from McCall that, in Darwin's time, statistical thinking had as yet gained no purchase in the biological sciences. *Darwin introduced chance as shorthand for undirected variation within a species, the raw material upon which selection acts. He used the word "chance" 67 times in On the Origin of Species. Darwin's writing reflects an inner struggle over how to conceptualize random phenomena. Like the pre-quantum physicists, Darwin did not think of chance as a cause in itself; rather, it reflected the ignorance of a human observer attempting to describe a dauntingly complex natural world, with too many moving parts to track--be they molecules or finches. Nevertheless, in many places Darwin appears to ascribe causal power to chance. This is an apparent break with the thinking of his contemporaries. By the time Gould and Niles Eldredge articulated the theory of punctuated equilibria, random processes were commonplace in all the sciences. *Relying heavily on Grant Ramsey and Charles Pence,2 McCall summarizes the development of thought about chance, contingency, probability, and the variability (or fixity) of species. Working from Democritus to Aristotle and up to Darwin's time, he sketches the context in which Darwin's ideas took shape. Darwin's innovation was to show how selection bridges from what seems purposeless (chance variation) to what seems purposeful (adaptation). In this regard, Darwin's writing over time increasingly appropriated the language of purpose. Nonetheless, Darwin adopted the agnosticism of Huxley, and he resisted the attempts of Asa Gray to pull him toward natural theology. *From Darwin, McCall traces the outlines of the modern synthesis in the first half of the twentieth century and thence to Gould. Contingency, operating at a host of levels from large environments to small populations and microscopic mutations, has played a growing role to the present day. McCall raises the question of whether chance is "fundamental and irreducible," but he addresses this question more through the lens of twentieth-century philosophy than twentieth-century science, quoting, for example, Bertrand Russell's 1913 essay "On the Notion of Cause." To me, this was a surprising choice. Critiques of the sort raised by Russell and others have exerted little influence on scientific discourse, as a search for recent mentions of causal(ity) in contemporary journals will show. McCall seemingly returns to a more typical picture of causation in chapter 5 (e.g., in the conclusion of his discussion of teleology on p. 113). *In chapter 4, McCall invokes Philip Clayton and Jürgen Moltmann to set forth a scientifically informed theology of God. The journey begins with the question of how God relates to the universe. McCall adopts panentheism, in which the universe is within God, but God is more than the universe. God's role as creator argues for the universality of what scripture teaches. The monist approach of panentheism entails that God works in and through the creation. On this view, natural law is divine action by which the universe is sustained. Yet McCall acknowledges the need for a theory of divine action, at least to account for miracles. Some have proposed that randomness (quantum or classical) leaves room for a "bottom up" style of divine influence in the world. McCall eschews any such "causal joint," preferring to "leave the notion of divine involvement in the world ambiguous, nebulous, and indefinite." He prefers "top-down causation," à la Arthur Peacocke and Jaegwon Kim. I longed for a deeper dive into why McCall rejects divine omnipotence and why he posits that God works exclusively through secondary causes. I perceive unresolved tension between these assertions and McCall's acknowledgment of miracles and his expressed eschatalogical expectation of re-creation. *This chapter may aim at an audience already immersed in Philip Clayton's work, which I am not. I found myself repeatedly puzzled. For example, quoting Clayton, arguing for panentheism: "The infinite may without contradiction include within itself things that are by nature finite, but it may not stand outside of the finite" (p. 99). A counterexample sprang immediately to mind: the (infinite) set of rational numbers is outside the finite set {π, e}. Perhaps infinite is here understood to mean entirely comprehensive, containing everything; but on that interpretation, Clayton's words would be a definition of panentheism rather than an argument for it. *Traditionally, Christian theology has employed a dualist metaphysics in which God is distinct from creation. Faced with McCall's adoption of a monist panentheism, one might wonder how created beings who are part of God have freedom or moral agency. Do scriptural themes such as sin or judgment belong in a universe that is conceived as a strict subset of God's being? McCall does not address such potential inconsistencies. The answers may depend on what McCall (via Clayton and Moltmann) actually means by panentheism, a category that has perhaps expanded beyond its original definition. See, for example, Roger Olson's perceptive essay on panentheism and relational theology.3 *McCall turns to natural theology in chapter 5. Following Alister McGrath, the task of natural theology is to read nature from a Christian theological perspective. Natural theology should engage in constructive "sense-making," not to convince the unbeliever, but to perceive the divine within and behind nature. McCall articulates but peremptorily dismisses Aquinas's teleological argument for the existence of God from regularities in nature. This form of natural theology and its modern analogues McCall abruptly denigrates as "notoriously ambiguous, conceptually fluid, and imprecise" (p. 105). This illustrates a shortcoming of the book: McCall revels in intellectual history, but his assessment of the ideas is frequently unclear or incomplete. *There follows a detailed summary of McGrath's The Open Secret, but this summary makes too little contact with McCall's argument. Better is his engagement with Darwinism and the Divine, which leads into a critique of Paley's natural theology and a contrast with T. H. Huxley. Often quoted as a categorical denier of purpose in evolution, Huxley saw incontrovertible teleology in some "primordial molecular arrangement"--an initial condition from which the present state of the world would inexorably develop. McCall likens this to Ernst Mayr's observation that "the occurrence of goal-directed processes is perhaps the most characteristic feature of the world for living systems" (p. 113). The thread of natural theology is then reintroduced, proposing a picture in which divine purpose manifests in the world through natural processes. I was left wanting a deeper consideration of this idea. For example, when viewed through a Christian lens, what specific purposes are implicit in the evolutionary process, and how does natural history resonate with the character of God revealed in scripture? Finally, considering that McGrath sees no conflict with orthodox Christian theology, why should the reader opt for McCall's monist panentheism? *Chapter 6 seemed too brief a conclusion. I wanted to see the implications drawn more clearly from the first five chapters, and their integration into a coherent picture. For example, how does the foundation laid in chapter 4 for a theology of God connect to the importance of chance investigated in chapter 3? Do the imperatives for natural theology that emerge in chapter 5 support the theology of God proposed in chapter 4? The work also makes scant contact with scripture, leaving important themes and obvious questions unconsidered. The form of the conclusion colors this work as a project proposal, rather than the project itself. Nevertheless, the book was thought provoking, made connections with a galaxy of important thinkers, and gave me a host of provocative ideas to follow up. This made it worth my (repeated) engagement. *Notes *1Dieter Flamm, "History and Outlook of Statistical Physics," paper presented at the Conference on Creativity in Physics Education, on August 23, 1997, in Sopron, Hungary, https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/9803005.pdf. *2Grant Ramsey and Charles Pence, "Chance in Evolution from Darwin to Contemporary Biology," in Chance in Evolution, ed. Grant Ramsey and Charles Pence (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2016), 1-11. *3Roger E. Olson, "Relational Theology Yes; Panentheism No," The Patheos Evangelical Channel, September 26, 2022, https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2022/09/relational-theology-yes-panentheism-no/. *Reviewed by Charles Kankelborg, Professor of Physics, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717.

This interview was completed in May 2004, well before Stan Fischer had any idea he would become Governor of the Bank of Israel, a position he took up in May 2005. The interview took place in April 2004 in my office at the Russell Sage Foundation in New York City, where I was spending a sabbatical year. We completed it while running together in Central Park during the following weeks.Our meeting at Russell Sage was just like the many meetings we have had over the years. I was not sitting with a Master of the Universe, a world VIP, but with the same Stan Fischer I had first met in 1973 when he was a young associate professor, freshly imported from Chicago. There was the same ability to listen carefully, the same ability to talk and to explain simply and straightforwardly. In addition, there was the accumulated wisdom of a professional life spent developing and applying macroeconomics to the very real world.When I arrived as a PhD student at MIT in 1973, it was clear that Stan would quickly play a central role in the department. Within a few years, he was one of the most popular teachers, and one of the most popular thesis advisers. We flocked to his office, and I suspect that the only time for research he had was during the night. What we admired most were his technical skills (he knew how to use stochastic calculus)—, and his ability to take on big questions and to simplify them to the point where the answer, ex post, looked obvious. When Rudi Dornbusch joined him in 1975, macro and international quickly became the most exciting fields at MIT. Imitation is the sincerest form of admiration, and this is very much what we all did.When I came back to MIT in 1982, this time as a faculty member, Stan had acquired near-guru status. Teaching the advanced macro courses with him, and writing “Lectures on Macroeconomics,” which we finished in 1988, was one of the most exciting intellectual adventures of my life. We both felt that there was a new macroeconomics, more micro-founded and full of promises and that we understood its architecture and its usefulness. Although we had not thought of it as a textbook, it quickly became one, and it is nice to know that it still sells surprisingly well today.As the years had passed, Stan had taken more and more interest in applying theory to the real world, working with Rudi on hyperinflation, being involved in the economics of peace with George Shultz in the Middle East. In 1988, he decided to jump from academia to the real world, and became Chief Economist of the World Bank. After a brief return to MIT, he then returned to Washington in 1994 to become First Deputy Managing Director of the IMF, where he remained until 2001. That part of his life has been well documented in newspapers and magazines: While at the IMF, he was on the front lines during the Mexican crisis, the Russian crisis, the Asian crises, and many others. From the peeks I got of him during those times, what strikes me most is how he remained the same as he had been at MIT: calm, careful about the facts, analytical, using macroeconomic theory even in the middle of the most intense fires. Many thought and hoped that he would become the managing director of the IMF. Antiquated rules and country politics prevented it from happening. The IMF's loss turned out to be the private sector's gain. In 2002, Stan joined Citigroup, where he is the President of Citigroup International. He is still active in macro policy debates and remains one of the wise men of our profession.

Diosdado Macapagal, Philippine President from 1961-1965, whose career was made rich by working in the foreign service, belonged to a tradition of championing a Foreign Policy shaped under America’s tutelage, adhering to democratic ideals, dismissive of Communism, and indifferent to neutralism and non-alignment. While various groups branded this policy as one of mendicancy that jeopardized Philippine Independence itself, President Manuel Roxas, who instituted it in 1946, was given little to no option but to side with America. The Second World War’s apocalyptic results required prompt and massive reconstruction and industrialization, necessitating foreign aid. This study reveals a chapter in the Philippines’ Cold War History, which show instances of balancing the state of dependence on America with neo-realist postures. Macapagal worked for Land Reform to peacefully address Communism within and collaborated with America in the name of national security to counter possible foreign communist infiltration. In an anarchic world forged by Cold War developments, Macapagal secured US financial and military assistance and defended national interest in a neorealist posture to the point of championing views more orthodox and even contrary to that of America. Filipino’s preference for collaboration with America made the neo-colonial situation manageable at that time, to still reap whatever the superpower is willing to give while it promoted its own global agenda. Macapagal worked within this neo-colonial setting by balancing dependency and neorealism. References Abaya, Hernando. Our Vaunted Press: A Critique. Philippine Graphic 35, no. 16 (1968). Buszybnski, Leszek. “Realism, Institutionalism, and Philippine Security.” Asian Survey 42, no. 3 (2002). Carr, Edward. What is History? New York: Pelican Books, 1961. Constantino, Renato. Identity and Consciousness: The Philippine Experience. Quezon City: Malaya Books, 1974. _________________. The Nationalist Alternative. Quezon City: Foundation for Nationalist Studies, 1984. David, Randolph. “Philippine Underdevelopment and Dependency Theory.” Philippine Sociological Review 28, no. 1/4 (1980). De Castro, Rene. “Historical Review of the Concept, Issues, and Proposals for an Independent Foreign Policy for the Philippines: 1855-1988, 1989.” https://www.asj.upd.edu.ph/mediabox/archive/ASJ-27-1989/decastro.pdf Accessed May 13, 2022. Fifield, Russel. “Philippine Foreign Policy.” Far Eastern Survey 20, 4 (1951). Forbes, William. The Philippine Islands. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1945. Gribble, Richard. Anti-Communism, Patrick Peyton, CSC and the C.I.A. Journal of Churchand State 45, no. 3 (2003). Guinto, Josias. A Study of Philippine Foreign Policy. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Santo Tomas, 1955. Higginson, P. (1980). The Vatican and Communism from ′Divini Redemptoris′ to Pope Paul VI. New Blackfriars. 61 (719) pp. 158-171 From: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43247119 John XXIII. Pacem in Terris, Encyclical Letter. April 11, 1963. https://www.vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_j xxiii_enc_11041963_pacem.html Accessed: 19 March 2022. Lent, J. (1966). “The Press of the Philippines: Its History and Problems.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly (1966). Macapagal, Diosdado. A Stone for the Edifice: Memoirs of a President. Quezon City: MAC Publishing House, 1968. __________________. Constitutional Democracy in the World. Manila: Santo Tomas University Press, 1991. __________________. From Nipa Hut to Presidential Palace: Autobiography of President Diosdado Macapagal. Quezon City: Philippine Academy for Continuing Education and Research, 2002. __________________. Imperatives of Economic Development in the Philippines, University of Santo Tomas, 1957.__________________. New Hope for the Common Man: Speeches and Statements of President Diosdado Macapagal. Volume 1. Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1962. __________________. New Hope for the Common Man: Speeches and Statements of President Diosdado Macapagal. Volume 2. Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1963. __________________. 1963 State of the Nation Address. Delivered at the Old Legislative Building in Manila. Retrieved: March 19, 2022 From: https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1963/01/28/diosdado-macapagal-second-state- of-the-nation-address-january-28-1963/Accessed: 19 March 2022. __________________. 1964 State of the Nation Address. Delivered at the Old Legislative Building in Manila. https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1964/01/27/diosdado-macapagal-third-state-of-thenation-address-january-27-1964/Accessed March 19, 2022. __________________. 1965 State of the Nation Address. Delivered at the Old Legislative Building in Manila. https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1965/01/25/diosdado-macapagal-fourth-state-of-the-nation-address-january-25-1965/Accessed March 19, 2022. Magsaysay, Ramon. Roots of Philippine Policy. Foreign Affairs 35, no. 1 (1956). Manglapus, Raul. (1960). The State of Philippine Democracy. Foreign Affairs 38, no. 4. Official Gazette. Official Week in Review (May 27-June 2, 1962). Official Gazette. Official Week in Review (January 17, 1965). Perez, Louis. Dependency. The Journal of American History 77, no. 1 (1990). Pineda-Ofreneo, Rosalinda. A History of Philippine Journalism Since 1945. Mandaluyong: Cacho Hermanos, 1984. Pius IX. Qui Pluribus, Encyclical Letter. Issued November 9, 1846. https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/it/documents/enciclica-qui-pluribus-9-novembre-1846.html Accessed: 19 March 2022. Pius XI. Divini Redemptoris, Encyclical Letter. Issued March 19, 1937. https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19370319_divini-redemptoris.html Accessed March 19, 2022. Russell, Bertrand. Portraits of Memory and Other Essays, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1956. Van der Kroef, Justus. “Communism and Reform in the Philippines.” Pacific Affairs 46, no. 1 (1973). Velasco, Andres. “Dependency Theory.” Foreign Policy, 33 (2002).

<p>Bertrand Russell sat in the House of Lords as the third Earl Russell from 1931 to 1970. In these nearly 40 years as a Labour peer, Russell proved to be a fitful attender and infrequent participant in the upper house—speaking only six times. This paper examines each of these interventions—studying not just the speeches themselves but also their genesis and impact within Parliament and without. Of all the controversial and important foreign and domestic issues faced by Parliament over these four decades, it was matters of peace and war which prompted Russell to take advantage of his hereditary position and, more importantly, of the national forum which the Lords' chamber provided him.</p>

At the height of the Sino-Indian border dispute in 1962, Bertrand Russell, as “a lifetime friend of India” (Unarmed Victory, p. 88), appealed to Prime Minister Nehru for peace. Yet for the first 75 years of Russell’s life, India had not been an independent, developing state whose non-aligned diplomacy he could (usually) admire, but rather an economically and stra­tegically vital part of the British Empire. Thus Russell’s fraternal bond with India was formed during its protracted struggle against British rule. The central purpose of this article is to reconstruct Russell’s occasionally contorted connection with that historic contest, and it will do so by drawing on a wealth of neglected textual material. More than simply fleshing out a significant but overlooked chapter in Russell’s political life, this assessment of his decades-long association, as participant and observer, with the campaign for Indian independence also strives to capture the complex essence of his thinking on questions of empire generally.

<p class="RJblockquote">At the height of the Sino-Indian border dispute in 1962, Bertrand Russell, as “a lifetime friend of India” (<em>Unarmed Victory</em>, p. 88), appealed to Prime Minister Nehru for peace. Yet for the first 75 years of Russell’s life, India had not been an independent, developing state whose non-aligned diplomacy he could (usually) admire, but rather an economically and stra­tegically vital part of the British Empire. Thus Russell’s fraternal bond with India was formed during its protracted struggle against British rule. The central purpose of this article is to reconstruct Russell’s occasionally contorted connection with that historic contest, and it will do so by drawing on a wealth of neglected textual material. More than simply fleshing out a significant but overlooked chapter in Russell’s political life, this assessment of his decades-long association, as participant and observer, with the campaign for Indian independence also strives to capture the complex essence of his thinking on questions of empire generally.</p>

Considering variety of problems that Bertrand Russell dealt with, very important place have his ethical views despite the fact that they have been dispersed within various papers. Neither Russell nor many of his reviewers would consider problems that this prolific and controversial writer dealt with philosophical. Russell himself considered ethics and social humanistic problematics to belong among philosophical problems much more so starting with the fact that cognitive and evaluative problematics are strictly devided. Russell pointed out that evaluative problematics is what actually separates philosophy from science. As a spokesman for the philosophy which would rely on science he nevertheless tried to prove that essential values cannot be proved. He maintained that there is no place for science proper in the evaluative sphere as well as in the scientifically oriented philosophy. This relationship Russell sees as follows: science establishes truths, ethics deals with values, and philosophy is a kind of science while ethics doesn’t belong there. Though Russell came to these conclusions he still left ethics within the sphere of philosophy but he regards it as essentially separate field with different status from the one that scientifically established philosophy, logic and epystemology have. For the separation of cognitive and evaluative problematic Russell finds the cause in the fact that basic attitudes of ethical philosophy cannot be proved. This is also the case with the most fundamental philosophic-scientific attitudes which Russell himself showed to be unprovable. Fundamental postulates are unprovable in its conscious and evaluative sphere, they have its ontological hypothesis and its gnoseological principles equally essential as are its evaluative principles in the sphere of human experience. Despite the fact that these two cannot be equated they both belong to human consciousness of various sorts and degree of objectivity. Russell’s theory of ethics is not unique. He has in this sphere as well as in other spheres of knowledge changed his points of view. At the beggining he was spokesman for intuitionism and like Moore he maintains that »good« cannot be defined, but it can be intuitively recognized. Afterwards he rebuked his attitude considering that all evaluative expressions were emotional that they had optative rather than indicative character, thus constituting emoti- vistic trend in meta-ethics. His emotivism soon aquired social character since he recognized that in evaluative critical attitudes next to emotions there were also our wishes to be taken into account in order to be accepted in society. Russell avoids relativism in ethics, thus he builds an objective basis for his ethics, and in it he sees the possibility of scientific foundation for ethics.

The paper is an attempt to determine the understanding of heaven of tertiary students in San Beda College campuses. It also presents a theological discourse on the concept of heaven. The usual understanding of heaven for most students which is generally uncertain, their understanding of heaven as a place which has been fixated as an extra-terrestrial location into which one goes that resulted in an unfortunate view of reality that separates them from creation and the present world and the absence of deliberate and systematic research effort done on this topic have given the researcher very strong impetus to embark on this study. The paper hopes to build a more solid foundation of Christian faith after one has fully understood heaven as an anticipation of life’s fullness. Lastly, it is the aim of this paper to jolt more theological reflections on life, and on the world-view of human existence in ever changing contextualizaton. References Barron, Robert. Catholicism: A Journey to the Heart of the Faith New York: CrownPublishing Group, 2011. Boros, Ladislaus. The Moment of Truth: Mysterium Mortis. Translated by GregoryBainbridge. London: Burns & Oates, 1965. Canell, Fanell. Power and Intimacy in the Christian Philippines, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, p. 138. Catechism of the Catholic Church.New York: Paulist Press, 1994. Episcopal Commission on Education and Religious Instruction Catholic BishopsConference of the Philippines. Maturing in Christian Faith: NationalCatechetical Directory for the Philippines. Manila: Saint Paul Publications,1983. Kelly, Anthony. Eschatology and Hope. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2006. Kelly, Tony. The Range of Faith: Basic Questions for a Living Theology. Australia:St Paul Publications, 1986. Martelet, G, The Risen Christ and the Eucharistic World. trans. Rene Hague NewYork: Seabury Press, 1976 McDanell, Colleen and Bernhard Lang. Heaven: A History. New Haven: Yale UniversityPress, 1988. McGrath, Alister E. A Brief History of Heaven. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003. McKeating, Colm. Peace at the Last: A Christian Theology of the Last Things. QuezonCity: Claretian Publications, 2009. Moltmann, Jürgen. The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology. Translated byMargaret Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. O’Callaghan, Paul. Christ Our Hope: An Introduction to Eschatology Washington,D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2011. Ratzinger, Joseph. Eschatology-Death and Eternal Life. Translated by MichaelWaldstein. Edited by Aidan Nichols. Washington, D.C: Catholic Universityof America Press, 1988. Russell, Jeffrey B. A History of Heaven: The Singing Silence. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1997. Walls, Jerry L. The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology. New York: Oxford UniversityPress, Inc., 2008.