Comparative Analysis of Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein's Description of Skepticism

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.

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.

Have you ever had a feeling of doubt? In the play Doubt by John Patrick Shanley the reader is left with a lot of doubt because Father Flynn, one of the main characters, is being persecuted for sexually harassing a young boy in his class. In this play a pastor by the name of Father Flynn is being investigated because Sister Aloysius is suspicious that he has been sexually harassing a young boy by the name of Donald in their school. Based on the evidence in Patrick Shanley’s play, Doubt: A Parable, I conclude that Father Flynn is not guilty, because Sister A does not like Flynn and Sister A doubts all of her wrong doings after all of this commotion. There are also a lot of small reasons why he should be not guilty.

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.

Mr. Russell’s problem he wanted to solve is the use of a logical analytical approach to determine the truth about common claims based on inference. This implies that every truth or claim should be the foundation of the logical constructions versus inferred entities.

“Its very easy for someone to take sides when they only know one of them” (Pinterest quote). One may say this quote expresses the position of the Father Flynn in the story Doubt by John Patrick Shanley very forcefully. After analyzing the countless perspectives on whether Father Flynn is guilty or innocent, one may lean more towards one side.

The author says that to be a scientist, we must have the courage to face doubt, and he backs up his idea with a 19th century French physiologist, Claude Bernard, “Science teaches us to doubt.” Saying that a scientist must be open-minded to the fact that their findings are not always correct, the author describes Einstein’s process and how he goes about it. There is sense of knowledge that Claude Bernard seems to have as he is titled, “the great French Physiologist”. Also, the qualification and power that comes with Einstein’s name is known worldwide and clearly apparent. Both of these names and titles, which are very credible, come together to make Barry’s argument more

(p. 16). The author points out that regardless of the discipline being discussed, everyone formulates their belief system based on their own particular worldview.

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.

Perception of actions is a main theme throughout Doubt by John Patrick Shanley. All actions can be interpreted differently by every person which is what leads me to believe that Father Flynn is innocent.

In the reading of The Practical Skeptic written by Lisa J. Mclntyre , section one “ The Promise” written by C.Wright Mills talks about the idea of sociological imagination and what sociological imagination looks like. Sociological imagination, defined in the book, can be stated as a different way to see life. Most people have daily routines and those routines become their life. The same with thinking, people come to know one way of thinking and they live their life thinking that way. Sociological imagination, teaches the average person how to think outside of the bubble or thought process they have come to know and live.

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.

The connections between Ludwig Wittgenstein and Soren Kierkegaard as philosophers are not at all immediately obvious. On the surface, Wittgenstein deals with matters concerning the incorrect use of philosophical language and Kierkegaard focuses almost exclusively on answering the question 'how to become a Christian'. But this account belies deeper structural similarities between these men's important works. Thus, this paper suggests that their methods, rather than exclusively content, contain a strong parallel on which a natural and hopefully fruitful examination of their work can be based.

In “The Refutation of Skepticism”, Jonathan Vogel establishes an “Inference to the Best Explanation” (hereafter, “IBE”) as a means to refute skepticism about the external world. In this refutation, Vogel acknowledges that skepticism about IBE still remains a possibility, but that this kind of skepticism would be rather outlandish in character and thus could be ignored. This paper shall both establish and evaluate Vogel’s reasoning as to why he confidently dismisses any skepticism pertaining to his IBE, and furthermore will illuminate some points as to why Vogel may have mischaracterized potential threats to his method, leaving his refutation of skepticism vulnerable to doubt that is not as

ABSTRACT: Curiously, in the late twentieth century, even agnostic cosmologists like Stephen Hawking—who is often compared with Einstein—pose metascientific questions concerning a Creator and the cosmos, which science per se is unable to answer. Modern science of the brain, e.g. Roger Penrose's Shadows of the Mind (1994), is only beginning to explore the relationship between the brain and the mind-the physiological and the epistemic. Galileo thought that God's two books-Nature and the Word-cannot be in conflict, since both have a common author: God. This entails, inter alia, that science and faith are to two roads to the Creator-God. David Granby recalls that once upon a time,