Analysis Of The Book ' Problems Of Philosophy ' By Bertrand Russell

Do you ever wonder if you know anything? In his argument for skepticism, Peter Unger, states that “nobody ever knows anything to be so” (Unger, Pg. 42). If this were to be true, can one be certain that one knows things about oneself, the world one lives in, and about others? In fact, through the use of different methods, one can indeed know things about oneself, the world one lives in, and about others, which is why Peter Unger’s argument for skepticism can’t be true.

Throughout many centuries philosophers have argued over the existence of God. In today’s society many people tend to hesitate in believing in a God because of the new scientific discoveries. For example, in the mid 1990s scientists built the Hubble telescope which revealed that there were billions of galaxies in our universe, this discovery led some people to question how can one divine being create so much and yet have a personal connection with everyone in the world. Which, in result, may take some scientific explanation to strengthen one’s belief in God, but for those who believe there is a benevolent God they do not need science to show proof that he exists because of their morals and beliefs they have been raised to follow. In this paper I will prove that God does exist by explaining the ontological, cosmological, and design argument.

The mystical world has suddenly becomes more philosophical. Nowadays, people argue that it is impossible to prove existence of anything. Even more, some philosophers delivered great speeches and wrote books to prove that 1+1=3, and the misconception in mathematics. Bertrand Russell delivered a lecture named “Why I Am Not a Christian” in March 6, 1927. In this essay, he made many criticisms against Christianity and questioned the existence of God. He presented many ideas about the fallacy inside of Christianity. Bertrand Russell’s argumentation and logic in the first-cause argument are inconsistent because there can’t be infinite cause of one thing and God is a mystical figure, therefore his cause is unknowable, so Russell’s argument is uncertain.

The topic of knowledge and belief has been a subject of investigation and a primary field in philosophical research for centuries. Whether it was Aristotle or Descartes, multiple ideas on knowledge and belief arise, such as the epistemological theories of foundationalism or coherentism, which provide philosophical explanations to this debate. For the sake of this essay, and in my own opinion, knowledge should be distinguished from belief. Everyone is subject to different types of beliefs based on upbringing, however knowledge of basic items is universal, therefore it immediately becomes apparent that there is a clear distinction between the two concepts.

Bertrand Russell was a British philosopher, mathematician, and political activist. He studied philosophy and mathematics in college and was hired to give lectures at Trinity College. When World War I began, so did his political activism. In 1918, he wrote an article criticising the England’s part in the War and promoting peace. As a result, he was sent jail and removed from his position at Trinity. After he was released from jail, he began to travel the world giving lectures, and was eventually accepted back to Trinity. In 1950, he won the Nobel Prize in Literature and continued to give lectures on math and philosophy until his death in 1970. Throughout his life, he argued that war only causes more problems and that peace is the best solution.

Through the course of this paper, I began to wonder if it was even worth finishing. Thoughts rushed through my head on whether this Word document I was typing on even really existed. My reality as I presumed it to be may actually be thoughts in my head, and this philosophy assignment may have just been some weird way my own mind decided to entertain me. Perhaps yet, it may have been the work of a divine mind, taking helm of the way my thoughts flowed. These were all questions that came up as I read through George Berkeley 's, A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. For in his manuscript, he addresses skepticism about the physical world, that is the ambiguity humans have in how a physical world outside of our minds is like. Berkeley has a simple solution to this. Through his interpretations of ideas, Berkeley comes to the conclusion that there should not be any skepticism surrounding the physical world because the physical world simply does not exist.

David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion provide conflicting arguments about the nature of the universe, what humans can know about it, and how their knowledge can affect their religious beliefs. The most compelling situation relates to philosophical skepticism and religion; the empiricist character, Cleanthes, strongly defends his position that skepticism is beneficial to religious belief. Under fire from an agnostic skeptic and a rationalist, the empiricist view on skepticism and religion is strongest in it’s defense. This debate is a fundamental part of the study of philosophy: readers must choose their basic understanding of the universe and it’s creator, upon which all other assumptions about the universe will be made.

In this essay, I will take into account Russel and Coplestone's debate about the Metaphysical Argument. I will be arguing my opinion that Russel's view on the matter is right. First, I will briefly discuss both philosopher's take on the argument before I begin discussing my reasons for picking Russel. I will also take into consideration what someone taking Coplestone's side might respond to my opinions and defend myself.

In Peter Elbow’s essay “The Doubting Game and Believing Game” he discusses the two types of games that an individual can use to look for the truth in a situation. The Doubting game, is when an individual believes everything is false, and prove each assertion wrong, and the Believing game, is the process where an individual believes that all assertions are correct, and go over each one separately. With both games, there are certain rules that must be followed.

Many philosophers have provided their arguments for the existence of God. Their arguments are a priori or a posteriori. A posteriori is based on experience of how the world is. In which the Cosmological view of William L. Rowe comes from. This paper will show how Rowe took the cosmological argument and its principle of sufficient reason and failed to make it an established argument of the existence of God.

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

This section provides us with two selections from the essays of William K. Clifford (1845-1879) and William James (1842-1910). Clifford's essay, The Ethics of Belief, is based on the concept of evidentialism. This concept 'holds that we should not accept any statement as true unless we have good evidence to support its truth'; (Voices of Wisdom, 346). James wrote his essay, The Will to Believe, as a response to Clifford's essay where he endorsed a philosophy called pragmatism.

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

Throughout the course of this essay we shall examine two of the major philosophical arguments for the existence of God. The arguments that we are going to focus on shall be the Design argument and the Ontological argument. We shall compare, evaluate and discuss both the Design (or teleological) argument for the existence of God and the Ontological Argument for the existence of God, as well as highlighting philosophical criticisms of both theories too. By doing so, we shall attempt to draw a satisfactory conclusion and aim gain a greater understanding of the respective theories and their criticisms of each theory.

Epistemology is purposed with discovering and studying what knowledge is and how we can classify what we know, how we know it, and provide some type of framework for how we arrived at this conclusion. In the journey to identify what knowledge is the certainty principle was one of the first concepts that I learned that explained how we, as humans, consider ourselves to know something. The certainty concept suggests that knowledge requires evidence that is sufficient to rule out the possibility of error. This concept is exemplified in cases like The Gettier problem in the instance that we suppose (S) someone to know (P) a particular proposition. As Gettier established the Justified True Belief as a conceptual formula for knowledge, certainty