The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected. As soon as we begin to philosophize, on the contrary, we find, as we saw in our opening chapters, that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given. Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never travelled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect.
Betrand Russell - The Problems of Philosophy - OUP 1969
What questions does this pose and how can you provide an answer? If this was your stimulus how would you create an essay - choose an aspect - about doing philosophy and start a discussion!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never travelled into the region of liberating doubt"
I agree. I also think that i certainty can be considered a form of ignorance. Like agreeing to a fact. how can we be certain that a fact is 100% true when we can not even be sure of the idea of truths in the first place?
"Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom."
I completely agree with this. But -Without certainty is it possible to trust peoples ideas or theories through evidence which supports it? Philosophy in my eyes is about asking questions which usually can not be answered because that is what humans are usually intrigued by. Looking at what it means to be a human, you could say that by being human curiosity is present in everyone. This then gives us philosophy. A 'subject' in which humans are able to discuss these curiosities from religion to different worlds. However in the end no one can have a truth universally, just a truth amongst themselves. That then brings satisfy to oneself.
Commenting on what Alex says, I agree that yes certainty is a form of arrogance universally however not to ones self. I think that ignorance is what people characterize an individual for not seeing what the larger community see. This like most things could be questioned and proved untrue because what if that community were actually the ignorant ones and that individual was not.
Like in most of our classes we always end with discussing if we can come to a truth. I say we can't but individually we can accept what we believe.
'I think that ignorance is what people characterize an individual for not seeing what the larger community see. This like most things could be questioned and proved untrue because what if that community were actually the ignorant ones and that individual was not."
If ignorance is what characterizes a person then do you mean all persons are ignorant? if that is so then that means that no one is unique. when you said 'see' did you mean 'understand'? because perhaps the individual cant 'see' what the community 'sees'. but that doesnt mean that a community cant understand what the individual understands. And perhaps we are all ignorant becuase we are believing things that are only said to be 'fact' by a community that insists there is proof for it to be defind so. Finally, to what extent should a human begin to disagree with a universal 'truth'?
Just to play a little bit of Devil's Advocate, I'm just going to poke a few questions out there just because I feel like it, even though they may not necessarily be my point of view. Betrand Russell clearly has a distaste in what he believes is 'ignorance', and in custom. Russell, from this passage, seems to be the kind of person who likes to explore the world through the use of intellect, using the mind to use philosophy to discover and understand more about his own world.
What I want to question, however, is his stalwart position against things such as 'custom', and 'arrogant dogmatism of those who have never travelled into the reigon of liberating doubt'. I'd like to delve into The Matrix as an example, where Cypher says to Agent Smith, "Ignorance is Bliss". I do not doubt that Russell is a great philosopher, nor do I doubt that his intelligence and pursuit for philosophy is definitely higher than that of the average human. Yet he seems to look down upon those who do not follow the same path as he does. This 'sense of wonder' that he talks about, is not necessary whatsoever. Take the wilderness for example. Exploration of new territory, is probably the only exploration that animals do, yet they get along in life perfectly fine, creating a balance between them and the rest of the environment. While animals can do this easily, Russell seems to believe that humans must have knowledge, and though I haven't read the 'opening chapters', I would assume that Russell is saying that Philosophy is everywhere (which it is).
However, philosophy is nowhere near necessary. Russell lived in a society that was advanced through the ages by the majority of people who did NOT do heavy philosophy. Yet he deems them ignorant. He challenges those who reject the unfamiliar, but that's simply because it's a preference and a way of life. Russell feels they have cowardice, and arrogance for not doing this? I feel Russell is arrogant for placing judgement on people who are content with their lives, without needing to approach Philosophy.
What makes Russell so much superior? And if he didn't intend to give that impression, then why did he choose his word choice like that?
Is ignorance truly lower than knowledge? Truly, you will know more, but ignorance offends nobody, except those who are 'knowledgable'. If the world existed without Philosophy, how would things be now?
Um. I just read Alex's and Lexi's comments, and I think the reply was a bit off. Alex, I think all that Lexi was saying was that sometimes the community could be wrong. She wasn't suggesting that the community doesn't understand the individual, so that's a little bit out of context. Of course, however, your question of whether we can truly come to one universal truth interests me (or disagree with them).
No. Philosophy is SUBJECTIVE. Point of view are subjective. I've mentioned this to Christian once, that perhaps the only universal truth that could exist is 'God', because only 'God' could have the power (omnipotence), to create, or be a universal 'truth', that everyone agree in. However, of course, I can't prove this, nor can we know if this is possible, because this has not yet happened. Hence this... probably falls down flat on it's face.
Anyways. Yeah. Back to the question though, I intepreted it to be something around the idea of breaking free of what community has accepted as norms, and assumes due to the community's beliefs. I think... whereas it's important to trust in the individual, the community has set rules for reasons, due to the anthropomorphic and social actions of humans. Whereas of course, the judgements and 'truths' of society cannot always be trusted to be correct, they are generally, quite frankly, there for a reason (relates to Duty Utiliarianism). If you suggest of disagreeing with universal truths set down by humans, by all means, I think that this should be happen, under the circumstance of things being 'ethically right' (now, your response to this depends on how you see ethics). Sigh. Does it ever end?
EUGHHH. Long post.
I agree that philosophy is something that not necessarily forms people's ideas or beliefs, but leads people that already have them, to explore them more, and seek to understand the reasoning behind them. It is not the kind of thing that instills or completely changes/alters a current belief system, as it rarely proves one thing over the other, however it leads people to have a deeper understanding of what other people believe and allows them to give creedence to these beliefs. Philosophy leads people to think about things they may never have specifically considered, yet may already have a basis of thought on, and allows them to build upon and develop these ideas. People think about the reasoning behind their ideas, and are often forced to admit that there is no reasoning. Whilst this may be true, it doesn't lead them to abandon this belief or thought, but to look at other explanations. Philosophy leads people to break down thought processes and understand each thought that they went through in order to wind up with their conclusion.
I think that whether we agree to his point of view largely depends on what kind of achievements we want philosophy to accomplish. If its purpose is to help humans achieve holistic growth, then I agree with the article, as widening perspectives, raising questions and breaking down thought processes can be done through philosophy (that fact that philosophy's greatest value is its uncertainty leads us to approach the world with a more open mind). However, if the point of philosophy is to create some definite answers (ie with the process of doing hpilosophy leading us to an answer) then it goes against the article as we're not looking to broaden our minds but to come to some sort of concrete conclusion (eg ethical guidelines).
Personally, I agree with the article, as not all questions have to have a definite answer - to do so would limit our minds again (link to Marxism - socio-economic model dictates thought, or existentialism - rules are random and we should not be bound by them? Could bring in epistemology as well, maybe?).
I agree with the fact that philosophy diminishes our feeling of certainty because it challenges people to explore what they have always thought as true and obvious (right and wrong, is and is not) and realize that nothings is black and white.
Though shaking your foundations of beliefs and what you have always 'known' may be daunting, to be in this state of uncertainty is to allow your mind to be open and to consider the possibilities. In doing philosophy we question ourselves (e.g. Descartes who questioned how he got his knowledge and realized that even his senses which he has always relied on may be deceiving him).
I think that when we are able to do philosophy and question ourselves, knowledge, God etc. we do not confine ourselves to our initial beliefs and we are aware of the infinite possibilities.
I mostly agree with this arguement. However I think the uncertainty of Philsophy does not necessarily "lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given" because to me, philsophy, unlike science, is more about asking questions and being broad-minded than finding answers.
It seems as if Betrand Russell is suggesting that people who do not think philosophically are all arrogant, ignorant and incapable of independant thought. which, in my opinion, is a massive assumption a philosopher of all people shouldnt make.
I kind of agree with what everyones said so far..
:)
This raises a lot of interesting points but I don't really agree that the value of philosophy is in the uncertainty of it. What is the point of raising doubts/questions about the world that we already know we might never answer? For example, we recently looked at ethics- is there any point in debating ethics if it can't lead to anything concrete that can be applied in real life? I feel like if we can't really discover anything new about the world through philosophical questions and debates it is of limited value to anyone.
But even if it seems impractical at times I can see that raising these uncertainties and doubts, and therefore opening our minds to new possibilities, is valuable in itself.
"The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason."
This reminds me of Plato's Cave and how all we know is what we are shown, it is only when we break out of these constraints and discover philosophy that we are no longer "imprisoned". However, when looking at the extract as a whole Russell is being extremely judgmental and has his own bias towards those who have not found philosophy. Surely, they have found philosophy in one way or another. Surely, no one goes through life following rules exactly without ever questioning anything.
Russell seems to be critical of religion by describing it as 'arrogant dogmatism'. However, religion has its benefits, it provides answers for theists where philosophy does not. Philosophy is a series of questions and attempts at reasoning but very few answers. Religion can provide security for those who require it.
I agree with Russell in the sense that philosophy does increase our knowledge, or at least our curiosity and the possibilities of what we can know.
I think that Philosophy does hold many uncertainties Philosophy is a way of thinking. I didn't take Philosophy for solutions or answers but rather to open my mind to different ways of thinking.
I agree with what Russell is saying that it greatly increases our knowledge of what could be and that nothing can be 100% certain. Although I don't think that philosophy is for everybody. This can be supported with the example of Plato's Cave, where a select person or people become enlightened by studying philosophy and some are just happy living with what is here, no questioning, no curiosity. Personally I believe that they are missing out on a lot that can be realized in life.
This excerpt deals with epistemology and how we know things in terms of Bertrand russels view point, how we know things through a philosophical perspective.
again it also deals with the human condition in that it suggests that knowledge is something that is not as clear as we perceive it to first be.
Post a Comment