The Problem With Philosophy

With this lesson, we begin a new unit on epistemology, which is the philosophical study of knowledge claims. In this first lesson on epistemology, we begin by examining the question “What do we mean when we say we know something?” What exactly is knowledge? We will begin with a presentation that introduces the traditional definition of knowledge. Wood then discusses some of the basic issues raised in the study of epistemology and then presents an approach to epistemology that focuses on obtaining the intellectual virtues, a point we will elaborate on in the next lesson.

"Everything must have a purpose?" asked God. "Certainly," said man. "Then I leave you to think of one for all this," said God, and he went away" (265).

Another reason I do not believe that the universe has a purpose is due to the brutality of nature, rather than peaceful harmony. As put forward by Herbert Spencer, a 19th century

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

All the symptoms that were described were based on the kidney functions, so more and further

Susan R. Wolf (born 1952) is a moral philosopher who works extensively on the meaning of human life and is the Edna J. Koury Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Wolf addresses the questions of the meaning of life in hope to distinguish the characteristics and reasoning that gives meaning to life. According to Susan Wolf view about the meaning in life, “I would say that meaningful life are lives of active engagement in projects of worth… two key phrases, ‘active engagement’ and ‘projects of worth’” (Wolf, 205). However, I believe that her proposal leaves out our basic motives and reasoning that’s

Introducing a distinction between two unlike styles of knowledge of truth was Russell’s solution to his problem. Being direct, infallible, and certain is the first truth style and the second is open to error, indirect, and uncertain. He gave a good explanation for his position by proving that it is essential that indirect knowledge stand up to more fundamental or direct knowledge. Basically stating that theory alone does not show facts and you must have provable facts or direct knowledge.

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.

Similarly, humans often have to cope with doubt, and the students come to realize they are “different from the normal people outside; we perhaps even knew that a long way down the line there were donations waiting for us. But we didn’t really know what that meant” (pg. 69) In this quote, Ishiguro suggests that a purpose does not solidify one’s meaning in life. Despite knowing their purpose in life is to make donations, the students remain unfulfilled and continue to search for something that feels meaningful to them.

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

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).

Upon talking about the history of modern philosophy, one of the most important philosophers, who is considered as the father of the philosophy in this period, is Descartes. He was a pioneer for the movement of the new trend of philosophy and became a break between the medieval philosophy and the modern philosophy. Being educated in the environment of medieval philosophy, specifically in the school of Jesuits, Descartes received the system of scholastic philosophy as his foundation for making a new start into the history of philosophy. In his life, Descartes tried to establish a system of philosophy which was suitable to the development of society and science. To do that, he did not collapse pre-philosophical systems, but somehow he ignored their values. In his Meditations he says “Once in my life I had to raze everything to the ground and begin again from the original foundations, if I wanted to establish anything firm and lasting in the sciences.” Therefore, he just could begin a new system of philosophy which, he thought, would be a certain and firm foundation to get knowledge. However, to build up the principles for this foundation, Descartes had to use the concept of God in his arguments. The existence of God became an important means for the construction of his new philosophical system. Hence, I will emphasize on the importance of God in this paper by discovering the role of God as a means in Descartes’ main points of reasoning, particularly God with the method of

Furthermore, everything that occurs in life is a random process and it is not permanent. Hence, it rejects the idea of finding that one purpose that someone is meant to do. Life will throw many events and circumstances that may be beneficial and some that will make a person learn or grow from. Every human being has their own task to do on this planet. Therefore, individuals cannot have one common purpose in life. The most significant thought is to seek for it in oneself, rather than merely agreeing with someone else’s notion of it.

Allow me to begin this paper with a quick story. Going into this semester, I knew absolutely nothing about philosophy, and I thought that with this class being a Gen Ed, that it was going to be a cakewalk on my way to just getting it out of the way. I quickly learned how wrong that my mind frame going into the class, as it was quickly finding itself digging me a deep hole to crawl into, grade wise. I never realized how deep the roots of philosophy ran, from government to art. This class has opened my eyes to the world around with more depth than I thought was possible. From Plato’s dualism to Nietzsche’ tragic optimism; there are just so many different facets to the realm of philosophy that I have just started to learn about. All in all, Its been successful semester and taking this course has helped open my eyes to the larger world around me, as well as help me decide where I stand on my own philosophy. But before I get into that, allow me to describe to you a few of the things I learned in this class, as well as where I stand on a few of the hotter topics in the world of philosophy.

Doing philosophy as many philosophers demonstrate over time and in the present is to simply question the understanding of what is known and not known or accepted and unaccepted. This is to say, that philosophers must question all aspects of life and all the surrounding dimensions of the world. In doing so, the philosopher is trying to grasp a firmer or different understanding of the truth that is either presently or not presently known; whether comforting or not comforting. One of the world’s most famous and original philosophers Socrates, had a student named Plato who explains this very concept of philosophy in the “Allegory of the Cave” when describing what it would be like for the newly free prisoner to realize the actual true reality in which the prisoner lives in. “[The prisoner would] be pained and dazzled and unable to see whose shadows [the prisoner had] seen before”, but the prisoner would now see reality more clearly than previously seen before. (Plato) Though the prisoner’s revelation seems to be uncomforting, Plato follows this newly sorrowful seen reality by asserting that the prisoner’s next steps in continuing would be to “see the sun, not images of it in water or some alien place, but the sun itself, in its own place, and be able to study it.” (Plato) The prisoner could now expand on this new realization of reality and allow this new view to further carry the prisoner to future and further understandings of reality and its