Download doc the problems with philosophy

Russell- The Problems of Philosophy
Chapter 1 Appearance vs. Reality
Begins with question: What knowledge exists that can be known
without any doubt. The purpose of this question is to create the
realization that radical doubt can take even our most commonplace
assumptions in everyday life and put it under reconsideration.
Uses example of table - He walks around table, notes color, but notes
that the color changes from points of view and how the light strikes the
table.
This seems to contradict our assumption that the table has only one
color.
Uses example of asking two people what colour the table is from two
points of view. It stands to reason that one of the person might think
that the table is one color, and the other person might have a slightly
contradictory viewpoint. This means that we can't really know what
color the table really is.
Moves on to texture. Says that although the table may seem smooth and
hard, when you look through a microscope the texture of the table
becomes much more varied.
Depends on sense-data.
Consider sensation as an act to belonging to the realm of experience.
Since we cannot know the specifics of the tales existence, or of it's
existence at all.
We may doubt the tables existence but it is harder to doubt our own
perception of our sensations. We can look at our confidence in the sense
data as safe.
Next, we look at how the table(if it exists) relates to our sense-data.
first question- is there a table
second- what sort of object is it.
Answer to question one with British Philosopher Bishop Berkeley.
Berkeley says that physical objects do not exist independently of us.
They depend on our minds. According to him matter does not exist, they
are just ideas and mental projections.
Russell agrees with Berkeley in that he says that if anything exists
independently of us they cannot be a part of our sensations. This is a
much softer view than that of Berkeley, who says that nothing exists
independent of our through structures.
Berkeley says the reality of the table and other objects is in the mind of
God. Some other philosophers believe that believe that objects only
need to be observed by some entity, that doesn't necessarily need to be
god.
Although Russell brings up the question "is there a table?", it is not
necessariy because he doesn't believe there is. He does say that most
philosophers agree that there is a table, and that our sense-data are
signs that there is something that can exist independently of our
thought.
example of Cartesian techniques( a nod to Descartes).
Takes issue with the concept of common sense, says that senses can be
deceiving. Says that if Philosophy does not have the ability to answer
these questions, it does present the questions.
Chapter 9- The World of Universals
World of Universals first outlined by Platonic philosophy.
Concept of Justice- to find what justice is, Plato looked at just actions to
figure out what common threads existed.
The fact of whiteness being white, can be applied to many white things.
These things are participating in a common essence. Forms.
Russell renames forms as universals. According to Plato the real world
was a universal.
Human speech habitually involves at least one universal per sentence.
This is meant to say that all truths involve universals and our
knowledge of them involves understanding the concept of universals.
If we say that white things are white, we say so because they all share
the abstract quality of whiteness.
The fact that things that share qualities resemble one another is taken
as a given. If we do not have anything to compare with we cannot call
something a form.
He holds that universals are independent of thought, like platonic
thought.
Considers sentence "Edinburgh is north of London". Relations between
two places seem independent of our knowing it's truth. We cannot make
it true by knowing it, but we just learn it. Without anyone Edinburgh
would still be north of London. But this requires "north of" to be a
universal. Since this does not involve anything mental, "North of" can be
a non-mental.
We can say that this relation is like the "term it relates" independent of
thought. "North of" does not need us to think of it but it does not exist in
the same way that Edinburgh and London exist. It does not have a
specific location. He concludes that this relation is neither physical or
mental.
Chapter 10- On our Knowledge of Universals
Universals- sense-data like "white, red, hot, cold" etc. are universals.
Abstracting a universal relation- hearing chimes. Hear the progression
of chimes and can remember them while knowing which chime came
before and which came after. Space/time relations.
Greater than relations" Comparing two shades of green to one shade of
red. The two shades of green are obviously more alike than the other.
Moves to proposition - All a priori knowledge deals exclusively with
relations of universals.
Begins saying all class of particulars belong to some other class. I.e, all
particulars having one property might also have another property.
Restated it means "Any two and any other two are four"
Russell keeps the view that a priori deals with universals. We
understand two and two are four as soon as we understand two and
two. It is impossible to know all of the couples in the world, but not
needed to understand the statement.
Power of abstracting universal allows us knowledge of a priori logical
truths.
ex.2 : All men are mortals. Need to understand the universals "man" and
"mortal". Don't need to know the whole human race to know the
statement is true.
A priori prop's can be known without knowing a single instance of it.
Ex. It's known that multiplying two numbers together will give us a
third number.
ex. "number of integers is infinite, only a finite number of pairs of
integers ever have been or ever will be thought of by human beings."
Knowledge of physical objects depends on inference, we do not have
immediately knowledge of them. We can only rely on our sense-data.
Chapter 2 Existence of matter
-Is there really a table that continues to exist when we turn off the lights
and leave the room? Or is it just a product of our imagination?
-we doubt physical existence, but we cannot doubt sense data
-if we put a table cloth that completely covers the table—if the table
were mere sense data, the table would cease to exist and the table
would be suspended by empty air
-10 people around a table it is absurd to think that everybody is looking
at different knives, forks etc.. just because they are being seen from a
bunch of different viewpoints
There must be public neutral objects neutral to all
-The fact that different people have similar sense data for one particular
object makes us suppose that over and above the sense data exists a
PERMANENT PUBLIC OBJECT which underlies or causes the various
sense data of various people at different times
-Ex: I buy a table from the former occupant of this table—impossible to
buy his sense data but I did buy the confident expectation of more or
less similar sense data.
-It is impossible to rely on other peoples testimony to show that there
must be objects independent of our own sense data because other
people are ALSO sense data.
-we must rely on our purely private experience—we cannot prove the
existence of things other than ourselves and our private experiences. It
is possible that our whole life is a dream and nothing is real
-For our purposes, it is easier to assume that physical objects exist
-If a Cat were only sense data, how cat the exist only when we see it,
how does it get hungry during non existence? (when it is our of our
sight)
-If cat is only sense data, it cannot be hungry, since no hunger but my
own can be a sense datum to me.
-We come to the belief of an independent external world through
instinctive belief
-since this instinctive belief does not lead to any difficulties, but on the
contrary tends to systemize and simplify our account of our
experiences—no good reason to reject it
-We may then admit then with a slight doubt derived from dreams that
the external world exists.
-We do not have reason to object an instinctive belief (such as the one
above) EXCEPT if it clashes with another instinctive belief. Possibility of
error remains but its likelihood is diminished by the interrelation of the
instinctive beliefs.
Chapter 3 The nature of matter
-We have established that the table exists continuously, which means
that all of our sense data (color, touch, smell, sound) will reappear when
you open your eyes.
HOWEVER, what is the nature of the real table?
-physical objects in which we acknowledge as causing our sensations
are in the space of science which we may call physical space
-if our sensations are to be caused by physical objects, there must be a
physical space containing these objects and our sense organs and
nerves and brain.
-We get a sensation of touch from an object when we are in contact with
it—WHEN some part of our body occupies a place in physical space
quite close to the space occupied by the body—both the body and the
objects in ONE physical space
-Physical objects in physical space must roughly correspond to sense
data in our private space.
-We must point out the distinction sense data and physical objects
Sense data affords evidence of the Sun 8 minutes ago if the physical sun
had ceased to exist within the last 8 minutes—it would make no
difference to the sense data which we call seeing the sun
PHYSICAL object of the sun not what we see directly –it is sense data.
-take the example of 2 blue cars
-we presume a corresponding similarity between the cars—but we
CANNOT hope to be acquainted directly with the quality of the physical
object which makes it look blue or red.
-science tells us that this is a wave motion.
-these wave motions must be in physical space in which we have NO
direct acquaintance with. ALTHOUGH relations of physical objects have
all sorts of knowable properties derived from sense data
-the intrinsic nature of the physical objects still remain unknown (so far
as the senses are known)
-Is there any other way to find the intrinsic nature of objects without the
senses?
-idealists say that whatever we see as matter is in fact mental—minds
perceive the matter
Chapter 4 Idealism
-what exists is mental
-physical objects have an independent existence they must differ very
widely from sense data and can only have a correspondence with sense
data.
-Bishop Berkeley: proved that the sense data cannot be supposed to
having an existence independent of us, but must be in part ‘in the mind’
in the sense that their existence would NOT CONTINUE if there were no
seeing, hearing, touching etc…
Idea: anything that is immediately known
-lets use the example of a tree
-the only thing we can say about it is that it is perceived
-The continued existence of the tree when we are not around is due to
the fact that GOD CONTINUES TO PERCEIVE IT—ideas are permanent in
god’s mind so long as they continue to exist.
-our perceptions consist in a partial participation in God’s perceptions—
IT is because of this that people see more or less the same tree. APART
from minds and ideas—there is nothing in the world.
Problems:
-Berkeley says that the tree must be in our minds
-The only thing that Berkeley has the right say is that a thought of the
tree must be in our minds
-We are aware of 1. there are things which we are aware (color, touch)
2. on the other hand the actual awareness itself
#2 is no doubt mental (awareness) but what about #1?
Berkeley argues that color is only in the mind, however, he is confused
of what the mind really is…
The fact off being acquainted with things other than itself is the main
characteristic of a mind –acquaintance entails relation between mind
and something else-this constitutes the mind’s power of knowing things
-If we say that the things known must be in the mind… we must say that
whatever is in the mind must be apprehended by the mind…if it is
apprehended somehow it cannot be mental.
-leadup to knowledge of truths vs. knowledge of things
Knowledge of truth(savoir): the sense which applies to our own beliefs
and convictions (judgements) knowledge that is opposed to error
Knowledge of things(connaitre): acquaintance