Russell's Arguments On Why Philosophy Has Value Without Answers

Improved Essays
Russell claims that philosophy has no answers, I will argue that Russell is correct about this. First I will object this claim with evidence and opinion to prove it’s wrong. Then I will give Russell’s response and why I support his claim. Lastly I will explain my standing on why philosophy has value without answers.
Philosophy is a field of unanswered questions. If a questions develops answers, then it changes from philosophy to the area of knowledge it is associated with, supporting that philosophy will never have completed answers. Math, Science and Astronomy, to name a few, have all originated from philosophy, but can no longer affiliate their fields as they are based of true fact. When substantial questions have been answered, for
…show more content…
Practical men would reply no, they want to see physical results. They are oblivious to the necessity of knowledge to open their mind. They seek proof, or material answers, instead of ‘food for the mind.” Just as an atheist wants solid proof of God or a believer wants proof that science has all the answers, they look at the surface level of answers, not digging far enough down to realize the answer is a mixing pot of contradictions.
I agree with Russell saying that philosophy has no answers. Philosophical questions that are worth asking never will find conclusion. If an answer did result it wasn’t important in the first place. The entire meaning of philosophy is to ask the right questions. That the answers are not as important as finding the union between the universe and the individual.
Yet there is a strong contraction that even Russell does not address. Russell says we must “free our minds” through careful examinations of our beliefs, that we mustn’t have anything to base what we think upon, and we must critically examine all we think and not believe it fully. Philosophers who demand us to find proof and unanswerable answers are never held to that standard themselves. I may believe one thing, truly believe that I’m dogmatically correct, and they will still question my rightness. Yet there is no one asking philosophers why their beliefs are theirs. A slight hypocritical view, that everyone else is wrong for there solidified

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    Hence there is no way to know reality behind the empirical world. A natural consequence is the complete negation of knowledge of God. To Ayer, even the word God or a transcendental being was meaningless because it was not definitional. This is worse than traditional agnosticism, which at least, tried to figure out the existence of God. To agnostics such as Ayer or Wittgenstein, even though one may experience God, such experience is inexpressible.…

    • 913 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    However this goes the same for philosophical skeptics who cannot prove that the external world does not exist. Approaching this argument or proof deductively then puts us in a position of philosophical ambivalence, unable to conclude such a thing about an external world. But then if this is the case, we cannot progress forward intellectually and are stuck in an introspective loop of a doubtful or realistic world. It can then be said, as many skeptic philosophers believe the only known thing is the mind, that our mind is truthfully known to be so,…

    • 850 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Berkley's Argument Essay

    • 1061 Words
    • 5 Pages

    (Kant 224) Humans simply cannot fathom any object outside the realm of space and time. Because of the incapability for one to think of the idea of matter not existing, it seems that going through life questioning the difference is impractical. One’s true reality is the reality in which they believe and what they see. Why is it necessary to bring our perceptions to a point of one’s experiences to feel as if they are insignificant? While Berkley’s idealist argument seems like a valid and viable solution to solve the question of the existence of matter, there are some downfalls that can create a life full of continuous and vague questioning.…

    • 1061 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Once Kreeft feels confident in his view they continue on their journey. Diogenes was the next philosopher Kreeft met on his quest. Diogenes tries to persuade Kreeft from his “pointless quest” by proposing that there is no meaning to life. The meaning of life itself is subjective. Diogenes’ argument is that there is no objective truth about anything nonphysical or if there is objective truth then no one would be able to understand it or know it.…

    • 1385 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    There are even those that argue that some of the theories that the multiverse is based on could be wrong themselves. A theory that is based on and dependent on other theories without any data to back itself up, cannot be taken with more than a grain of salt. Most will not argue that the multiverse does not have its own merit and worth of study, but to classify it as a science is where the issues come in. Some would say that it is more of a question on philosophy than it is a…

    • 2045 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    This paper delves into the intricacies of his argument and critiques his approach while responding to some of age-old pertinent questions he raises. The ontological proof, according to McCloskey, does not hold any value and therefore has nothing to do with why theists believe in the first place (). There is no discussion around this theory. There is, however, an obvious interest in trivializing the cosmological proof of God’s existence. This is the…

    • 1765 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Inductive will not work because it would make the argument circular. Using induction we come up with conclusions based on our past experiences, but we can not use it because all inductive arguments for conclusions for the future are assumed uniformity of nature. The argument needs uniformity of nature as a foundation. There fore there is no reason to believe in the uniformity of nature, therefore no reason to believe that the problem of induction has a solution. “Even after we have experience of the operations of cause and effect, our conclusions from that experience are not founded on reasoning of any process of the understanding" (Hume, pg.…

    • 808 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Hume says that everyone should be skeptical of miracles, and has two main arguments for why he says that; a priori and a posterior. Hume is a philosopher who is skeptical of miracles in any form. The first argument behind Hume’s skepticism is surrounded by the idea of a priori. A priori is having knowledge or a belief based on one’s thought alone, independent from experience. This is simply believing what you have heard from a separate source, or one’s own hypothesis, without proof.…

    • 1950 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    George Berkeley argues that an objective reality does not exist. He argues for idealism, the belief that the external world does not exist and only the mind and ideas do, by arguing against materialism, that an objective reality does exist. Berkeley believes that an objective reality does not exist because of issues that come with materialism. However, his points do not make much sense as he relies on faulty ideas. He presents his argument by mentioning how materialism is unverifiable; that we cannot verify there is an objective reality, pointless; there is no need to posit an external world, and incoherent; our senses cannot be external objects.…

    • 1136 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In conclusion, I have fully, accurately state and explain Socrates’s claim at 96c-d of the Meno that virtue cannot be taught because there are no teachers of virtue is not valid. I explained Socrates’s provided good reasons, but he fails to consider the factor of time, which can render his argument invalid due to its uncertainty. I then considered the objection that my arguments does not guarantee virtuous people being able to teach virtue, and I responded by even if that is the case, my argument has already made Socrates’s arguments invalid because I pointed out that Socrates’s claim is no longer…

    • 1105 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays