The Problems of Philosophy
Product Description
‘Is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it?’ Philosophy is the attempt to answer such ultimate questions, not carelessly and dogmatically, as we might deal with them in ordinary life, but critically, after analysing how and why the questions arise and clarifying the assumptions and concepts on which they are based. This classic work, first published in 1912, has never been supplanted as an approachable introduction… More >>
Tags: Philosophy, Problems
February 28th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
I am just an occaisional, informal reader of philosophy. I would rate this book two stars, less because of it’s content and perhaps more because of my own shortcomings. I found many of the chapters verbose and hard to follow. To be honest, I’ve found that I am more interested in short snippets of what major philosophers had to say rather than delve into their thoughts myself. When I try, I often find I don’t have the attention span to follow what an author is saying, and that is what I found here. Having said that, I will add that I found the last two chapters more interesting. All in all, I would say this book is more tuned to serious lovers of philosophical questions than a casual reader such as myself.
Rating: 2 / 5
February 28th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
This book is compulsory reading to anyone studying Philosphy, it is written in such a style as to take away the mysteke normally associated with the subject. Anyone can read this book and gain an understanding.
Dr. Wallace Devlin, Ph.D
Rating: 4 / 5
February 28th, 2010 at 11:37 pm
In this book review, Bertrand Russell argues several points as to why he feels there are problems with philosophy, which I feel are pretty strong arguments. Some of Russell’s arguments can be summarized as:
1) The appearance and reality of an object’s existence differ based on individual point of view.
2) Whether or not the matter exists independent of an individual’s presence.
3) The origin of matter, and distinguishing it from physical science and physical experience.
4) Idealism and its inability to prove credibility
5) Induction: A, so therefore B.
6) Philosophy’s value
Russell’s “The Problems with Philosophy” begins with his view of a table’s existence. It was very interesting to read about Russell’s belief that there is difference between our physical view of an object and the `reality’ of whether or not an object is actually there. This particular analysis is the basis of the first chapter. According to Russell, every aspect of an object’s appearance and feel is based on an individual’s point of view. The main example he uses is that of a table, and someone else may interpret how the shade of color I see another way; the texture that I feel may feel different to someone else; another person may describe the shape I see as I walk around the table as a different shape. This same explanation is used for sight, sound, and touches whereas there are no fixed choices in reality; and in the end, our senses that we use for the appearance of things is how we become `acquainted’ with `reality’.
Another interesting argument Russell discusses is the object of matter, and whether or not an object remains to be present when one is physically absent from the object. Going back to the table, if we find it to not exist then “the whole outer world is a dream”. Everything we have ever known to be our reality does not exist independently of ourselves. Numerous times throughout the book Russell’s theory of sense-data is mentioned; and in this context, when one doubts the physical presence of an object it does not mean that they doubt their sense-data which initially “…made us think there was a table”. Here Russell begins to compare his theory with that which is found in Descartes’ book Meditations. Descartes believed in the possibility of a false reality and did not believe in anything that could not be proven to be true. Thus Descartes committed the appeal to ignorance fallacy, until he realized a flaw because he did not doubt his own existence. Continuing into this chapter, people may experience similar occurrences that vary, but even assuming that the other person exists makes the mistake of begging the question. Outside of what we experience for ourselves, anyone else’s experience independent of our own should not be considered. Furthermore, Russell shows the error in committing the appeal to ignorance fallacy, as he believes that, “[t] here can never be any reason for rejecting one instinctive belief except that it clashes with the others; thus, if they are found to harmonize, the whole system becomes worthy of acceptance.” Therefore, if a particular reasoning or belief does not inhibit the possibility of other beliefs, they should all be recognized respectively.
Russell then begins to investigate the nature of matter once we are able to conclude that it exists independently of us individually. Hypothetically, the nature of something from a scientific standpoint opposed to a human’s physical point of view, are of course different. Using a blind man and a light source as an example, it is extremely difficult to explain the effect light has on a blind man’s senses, because it is something he cannot experience directly. This example shows how things such as light, which is actually composed of waves, appeal to certain senses that exist in a `world’ independent of us. Another example used is the understanding of time. Just as time seems to go slowly when we are bored or in pain, it seems to go quickly when we have something to do or having a good time. It is considered inaccurate to measure time using these instances.
There is then the subject of idealism that states, “[w] hatever can be known to exist, must be in some sense mental.” To believe as an idealist is perceived to be far more difficult than someone who believes based on his or her common sense. Here Russell talks about how idealism derived, using arguments made by Bishop Berkeley. Berkeley believed that the idea of sense data could not be possible if our senses were not present, and that if something did not exist in a `mind’, then it could not exist at all. Russell agrees with Berkeley’s point of view up until a `mind’ being absolutely necessary for something’s existence. According to Berkeley, something is because it is perceived. Russell argues that Berkeley uses the word idea to help people accept idealistic beliefs, because common knowledge has us to believe that ideas originate in the mind. Therefore anything we perceive in our minds to exist can do so. However in the end, Russell completely rejects Berkeley’s theory of sense-data by feeling it is contradictory, and does not prove what he claims it to prove.
In order to gain knowledge about what is beyond our acquaintance, Russell uses inferences in a theory called induction. With inferences, an A, so therefore, B method is used. For example lightning has struck, therefore thunder will occur next, shows the use of induction that can help us with what is beyond our realm of thinking. Russell also shows how occurrences we often take for granted are relevant to this theory, as the example of the sun rising each day can be used. Just because the sun has risen each day in the past, is no reason to assume that it will therefore rise each day in the future, according to Russell. He goes on to conclude that our assumptions about the future should be probable and not definite, whereas the more accurate form of the argument should be “that the more A is found to be associated with B, “the more probable it is (if no cases of failure of association are known) that A is always associated with B.”
Russell once again brings science into the picture as he contrasts the structure of philosophy with science. Science is more likely to focus on the physical needs of the body, while philosophy is more vital in a mental sense. And yet with these differences, even though philosophy does not contain the amount of definite evidence that science or other disciplines can, philosophy is able to bring order to the physical sciences. Philosophy allows us to be open-minded, and free from “arrogant dogmatism”. To Russell, this sense of open-mindedness is a virtue that can let our lives be “great and free” if we escape from the prison of our private lives. He believes that “through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great,” but if we remain in our own little worlds, it can hinder us from the possibilities of exploration where the intellect and object meet. Russell feels concluding that “truth is man-made…space and time and the world of universals are properties of the mind, and that, if there be anything not created by the mind it is unknowable,” puts an “impenetrable veil between us and the world beyond”, and diminishes the value of philosophy.
Although it took some for me to get `acquainted’ with Russell’s point of view on philosophy, in the end I was able to understand where he has found flaws in the way it is used or interpreted. Russell is able to make strong arguments and support each claim with validity.
Rating: 3 / 5
February 28th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
[...] The Philosophers Chair » Blog Archive » The Problems of Philosophy [...]
March 1st, 2010 at 2:21 am
When I wrote my essay “A Cry From The Heart” (for sale on Amazon), I presumed everyone knew how fragile was our concept of knowledge. The comments readers of my essay make show me I was in error. It seems most folks think what they know is right and accurate. If everyone could read Mr. Russell’s “The Problems of Philosophy” they would clearly understand that we are operating on 99% of our decision making time, is what we believe. It is not easy to follow Mr. Russell’s logic on the first reading, but even a cursory effort should give all who try more humility in presenting their opinions in a dialogue. They would also be able to understand the thesis statement of my essay.
Rating: 5 / 5
March 1st, 2010 at 4:43 am
Russell does an amazing job of dissecting philosophy and getting to squishy center and practical basis that let’s us attempt to understand the world. It’s very easy to read and enjoyable. And despite being written in 1912, it reads like it was written yesterday (other then a few anachronisms, here and there).
The only downside is that, obviously, it doesn’t say much about philosophical developments in the 20th century.
Still, it’s a fantastic and easy to understand book, and everyone who can read should read it.
Rating: 5 / 5