Russell's Arguments 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