Analysis of Bertrand Russell´s The Problems of Philosphy Essay

A woman similar to his mother played a brief but important role in his life. This person was his grandmother Ida Rebecca. Ida Rebecca and his mother did not pair well mostly because they shared a certain amount of competitiveness. It was this competitiveness that showed Russell exactly what kind of woman Ida Rebecca was. She had a domineering presence that displayed a quaint form of matriarchy over all those around her, not limited to just her children. This power humbled Russell towards adults and caused him to listen more than speak. Ida Rebecca could be considered one of his biggest benefactors. Because of this simple quality of silence she instilled in him, he was able to understand life much better. Obviously, anyone who listens more than speaks is more likely to learn more. Although she was strong, Ida did have some loose ends. She was very superstitious. Everything

After reading “Thoughts of the Presence of Fear” by Wendell Berry and “Useless Knowledge” by Bertrand Russell, I found that it is quite evident that the approach of the 2 arguments proposed by the authors are very different. Wendell Berry’s approach is a more negative way because he states the solutions to the given problems, however, they are generalized. He doesn’t really go in depth as to why a certain solution will help or how the solution will lead to a better environment. Rather he mainly states that if we don’t change then it will lead to destruction. On the other hand, Russell incorporates personal experiences in his essay to fully support his argument. An example from the text would be his quote, “Curious learning not only makes unpleasant

It seems that he is emphasizing that we will never “know.” What we do know is based off of our mental ability to see things consciously.

He first disproves of the thought that philosophy studies only controversies to which the answer is impossible to know, and says that it will only matter, and have an effect on those who study philosophy for the purpose of gaining knowledge to connect the sciences for an understanding of the universe. Russell then compares a life without philosophy and a life with philosophy, the difference being that a life without philosophy is confined to only thinking of our world, while one who lives a philosophical life is free to think of the outer world, as well as beyond. He concludes by saying philosophy is not studies for the sake of answers, but for the sake of the questions themselves, in order to expand our knowledge of possibilities and intellectual imagination, in addition to understanding the capabilities and greatness of the

In life, what we perceive tends to show misconception in how the thought plays out. A good example would be the character Jay Gatsby in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s American classic: The Great Gatsby. Gatsby was unable to distinguish between his love for Daisy, a reality, versus the illusion that he could recapture her love by establishing and inventing a fraudulent past. He believed he could repeat the past, and acquire a flaunting wealth. In the novel, Jay Gatsby seems incompetent in establishing a difference between the realities of his life versus the illusion he made out.

Since Plato, two mutually exclusive yet essential categories of reality have been posited, one of concrete particulars and the other being abstract universals. Particulars are “unproblematic,” but universals may be entirely extant in many positions with no influence on the universal itself. A particular “distinguishing mark is that is exhausted in the one embodiment, or occasion, or example.” (Campbell 298) Particulars are unproblematic because they are restricted to a single point at any given time, not like universals which exist in different locations and are wholly present in those instances. The number of examples which contain the abstract universals are not diminished in quality of the universal. Campbell posits that this “problem” can be alleviated if properties were not universal at all. There is a distinction between abstract and concrete which differs from the distinction between universals and particulars. This is because particulars and universals can both be abstract where only particulars can be concrete. The particulars that

objects (e.g. a chair), definitions may vary, however they are all based on the existence of

During the 17th and 18th century two philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, arose carving for themselves a trench in the philosophical world. We can see the biggest distinction between the two in their theories of how we know things exist. The traditions of Plato and Aristotle have been dubbed rationalism and empiricism respectively. Under these traditions many well known philosophers have formed their own theories of God, existence and the material world. Through these individual theories I will show how each fits into the category of either Rationalist or Imperialist. The Plutonian philosophers to be

Bertrand Russell discussed certain problems he found with philosophy. Russell was concerned about how much did we really know. There is the stuff we know with our mind when we have a particular idea, and stuff we know through actually experiencing it which would justify it. But how do we know if it is real, or even there, for that matter? Russell says, “For if we cannot be sure of the independent existence of object, we cannot be sure of the independent existence of other people’s bodies, and therefore still less of other peoples minds, since we have no grounds for believing in their minds except such as are derived from observing their bodies” (Russell, 47). How can Farmer Brown be sure that the dairyman just didn’t have an idea

Most of us have heard the term “seeing is believing”, but in class we discussed that “believing is seeing”. When you already believe something and have an idea implanted in your memory it will alter what you think you are seeing. In class we observed many slides of different pictures portraying how believing is seeing. One specific example from the slide show was one image that contained two completely different pictures depending on how you looked at the picture. Before showing us the image for the first time the pervious slide stated “Cowboys Crossing the Creek”. When the image appeared you automatically saw cowboys on horses crossing a creek. Then we were shown a slide stating “Faces Everywhere”. This time when the same exact image was shown for the second time, you saw faces everywhere in the image. This is because you already had an idea placed in your mind causing you to see what you already believe.

our existence in reality is a question which philosophers have tackled throughout time. This essay will look at the

One of the most fundamental questions in philosophy is the one of appearance vs. reality. We find ourselves asking the question of what is genuinely “real,” and what is viewed merely as just an “appearance,” and not real? It becomes difficult when we assume there is a difference in the two to determine which is which. Generally, what we label as “real” is regarded as external

In contrast to the classical arguments for the existence of God, namely the ontological, cosmological and teleological arguments, the argument from religious experience doesn’t just entail a set logical of points arriving at a conclusion on a piece of paper, rather it also necessitates sense-based experience, tangible to the individual who experiences the divine.

In the essay, Russell presents the study of philosophy as a valuable undertaking, even though it does not directly help the whole world or increase one’s material wealth. The value is to be found for the student of philosophy herself or himself. This value is primarily found in the intellectual development that is available for those who undertake the study philosophy. They can escape narrowness, dogmatism, and narrowness as they become citizens of the world, with enriched intellectual capacities. Russell concludes with the idea that the mind becomes enlarged through the study of philosophy.

Russell was a leader in the revival of the philosophy of empiricism in the large field of epistemology. He wrote Our Knowledge of the External World (1914), The Analysis of Matter (1927) and Human Knowledge, Its Scope and Limits (1948). He also wrote Principles of mathematics (1903), Principia Mathematica (with A.N. Whitehead; three volumes, 1910 – 1913), and Introduction to mathematical Philosophy (1919).