appearence and reality Essay

B. Explanation of allusion: Bertrand Russell was a British philosopher, mathematician and social critic who was involved in the Anglo-American philosophy movement. He campaigned for peace and wrote on social, political, and moral subjects publishing 70 books and around 2,000 articles. In 1890, Russell switched his focus from mathematics to philosophy. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1950. He spent

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

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

1. What do you think Chalmers means by “fundamental reality,” and how does it relate to the idea of “multiple aspects of reality?”

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.

Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell delivered a blistering critique in a letter to the New York Times.

Emory makes a great point based on Russell’s argument that based on normal human perceptions it is easy to believe that our senses can be skewed and give us false data, and can be changed based on conditions of either the person or the environment in which they are viewed. For example, even texture can change on an object, when dry fur can feel soft, light and bouncy. If the condition changed, such as if the fur got wet, it would feel completely different, it would be heavier, soggy and greasy in some ways to the touch. If color and texture can possibly be abstract, it can be easy to fall into the belief of whether everyday life isn’t subjective as well or even exists. And based on that logic there seems to be no point at all to not believe

     Things are not always as they appear. You may think someone is a certain way because of how they dress and carry themselves this is called stereotyping. Many people stereotype without even noticing that they are doing it. Everyone has his or her right to first impressions, but stereotyping is wrong. There are many examples of this topic in literature as well as in our society today.

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).

Personally disagreeing with Russell's view, because science isn't always 'innocent' as Russell claims it to be. Russell stated " science is innocent unless proven guilty, while philosophy is guilty unless proved innocent" (Palmer 2013). The latter statement concludes that science is always right, which is wrong. Since science is always changing, Russell's philosophies always changed, so a persons' beliefs will always change if they merely trust science. For many research scientists believe in anything but God, while it is true a human being can prove God's existence through science, science should not be God, which I assume that Russell idled science to the point that God does not exist in his life at least has no control over him. While reading

believable or it is conceivable that it is false. This means that we can’t really know that anything we perceive

Perception is defined as how you look at others and the world around you. Being able to select, organize and intercept information starts the perceptual process. Perception affects the way people communicate with others. An individual’s pattern of thinking can affect their perception of others. Most people communicate best with people of similar cultures.

The distinction that causes the most trouble in philosophy is the distinction between "appearance" and "reality," between what things seem to be and what they are. The painter wants to know what things seem to be, the practical man and the philosopher want to know what they are. . . . but if reality is not what appears, have we any means of knowing whether there is any reality at all? - Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy

In Russell’s discussion “The Value of Philosophy,” he asserted that the true goal of Philosophy wasn’t a tangible, or even reachable, goal. He says that Philosophy won’t lead us to any definite answers, because once you acquire solid knowledge of a subject, it instantly becomes another science. Instead that the greatest value of this study comes from the mental freedom you get when you begin to question the status quo and not just accepting things as they are. He also says that questioning these everyday issues will not lead to a solid answer through the use of Philosophy. But those doubts will inevitably open you up to the infinite possibilities that are available in the world that neither you, nor myself would