The Problems of Philosophy

I enjoyed reading this book. Some sections are very insightful. The whole book is very well written (well, of course it is). Please keep in mind that I'm neither a philosopher nor a philosophy student. Though I really liked this book, and I was reading it very carefully, and at a slow pace, just to be able to digest it well. Just to give you a hint, this book mostly talks about what an object or a thing is, not quite precisely the problems of philosophy (maybe at that time?). As an example, Russell talks about the table in front of him. He interacts with it by sensing it (touching it, knocking on it, looking at it, describing its colors, etc). But can he really "know" that the table is "there"? Notice the quotes. This leads us to the question: What is knowledge itself? How do we "know" and what can we "know"? Can we really "know" what's "there" for certain? And so on. I'm not Bertrand Russell, so if you think this is boring, don't worry. The book is written in a much more interesting style (a meticulous and elegant style IMO). Though I noticed that Russell loves using little phrases in the middle of his thoughts/sentences that specify some meta-details (Example: "this work by Russell, which I secretly admire, has been, in many numerous occasions, considered to be, not directly so, by many philosophers of the highest caliber, many of which I had not the privilege of meeting, a milestone in metaphysics or whatever lol). It might be difficult to read for some people, but Russell's style is very clear most of the times. If you're genuinely interested in philosophy and want something concrete (to me, at least) and not just a history lesson, then definitely read this book.

I bought this book because it was recommended for further reading in my philosophy class. I figured it was going to be a pure drag...you know, huge words, vague sentences, so on and so on. I have to say that this book is the complete opposite. Bertrand Russell brings the topics right down to earth and explains them in a way that the average person can understand. The last chapter, "The Value of Philosophy" is written with beautiful style and is an enjoyment to read. Here is a quote from this chapter: "Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never traveled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect." This book definitely has sparked in me an interest in philosophy. If you are even remotely interested in the subject, I recommend you buying it too.

This short book is a journey through some of philosophy's more famous problems. Naturally a synopsis this short (it is roughly 100 pages) cannot do full justice to much of philosophy, or even to the problems it actually addresses, but it is an entertaining read that nevertheless will find itself illuminating to those unfamiliar with the subject. Uniquely, instead of following the historical chronology of the problems he chooses, Russell travels a path that seems to flow naturally from one subject to the next, as if each problem logically entailed the other. Consequently, Russell jumps decades (and even centuries), forward and backward as his narrative dictates. The experience is like a modern thriller movie whose out-of-sequence path nonetheless has a logic that makes sense. If you aren't already familiar with the subject you might not notice Russell's technique. Russell opens his inquiry by asking what justifies knowledge. Using Descartes' technique of systematic doubt, he explores the problem by examining illusions and fallacious conclusions that can arise when considering knowledge via sensory data to be perfectly reliable. Moving on to the existence of matter, Russell flexes some of his physics muscle with a cursory examination of the current state of thinking (writing as of 1912). The distinction between knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description leads to a discussion of induction and the distinction between empirical and a priori knowledge. This leads him to Kant and a long engagement with idealism follows. I won't spoil anymore. Of course Russell is himself a towering figure of 20th century analytic philosophy, and if you allow yourself a little cynicism, by the end it is clear his narrative merely engaged the line of philosophical puzzles that led to his own work. This is not meant as a character slight: this book's lightness bears little resemblance to his serious work and is aimed at a different audience. Rather, it is telling that the narrative he chooses is historically in line with his own work, so his omissions are less surprising when seen in this light. Given that Russell's original work centers on epistemology and logic, it makes sense the book starts at the Enlightenment, concentrating on epistemological questions, and never touches upon anything prior except for his brief foray into the problem of universals. For a book that calls itself the "The Problems of Philosophy," the omissions of major philosophical problems might raise your eyebrows if not for this fact. Russell is not an impartial narrator; he makes his opinions clear on a number of occasions, particularly with issues that have historical significance. I don't consider this a weakness; there is no shortage of general philosophy volumes that treat all ideas in a sympathetic light. It is also salutary to reflect Russell is not a philosophy historian in the normal sense (his huge History notwithstanding); he is an original contributor. Thus I would not expect a thinker of his stature to not proffer his views, as would be expected from any academic professor. My gripe with this book is the tediousness with which Russell begins the discussion. The early pages are somewhat monotonous and not entirely engaging. The rest of the work is quite engaging, so the book as a whole is let down by its beginning. This is unfortunate because many readers might not find themselves committed enough to finish it. Given the target audience (folks who may have no prior exposure to philosophy), missing out on the best parts because of its beginning would be unfortunate.

Bertrand has written on many different subjects and many of his books can often appeal to the general reader. This book is for those interested in philosophy and who enjoy esoteric arguments. It is for the person with an average philosophical interest and not necessarily the Ph.D. candidate. Bertrand tells us that if we wish to become philosophers we must be willing to tackle the absurd. Obviously! A lot of time is spent on Bishop Berleley, Plato and Descartes and idealism - we are all imaging matter; matter is a figment of our imagination; it's all in your head. The author finally assures us that there is something in the universe besides our comprehension of ourselves and our dreams. There does seem to be "reality" or matter even if it is perceived differently or inadequately by each of us. Bertrand finally states that Berkeley's notion that the objects apprehended must be mental has no validity whatsoever. One chapter deals with those that think that we can know more than we actually can know and with those who think, on the other hand, that nothing is knowable - Hegel in the first case and Hume in the latter. Finally we come to the nature of philosophy and its value. Philosophy deals in questioning the unknown and once the unknown becomes known it is no longer called philosophy but science. So philosophy has a rather nebulous list of achievements. Bertrand closes this book with this final paragraph: "Thus to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions, since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation; but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind is also rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good." Well that, of course, states the case better than anything that I could say but for my part I must offer something. I have always been attracted to philosophy because the philosophers were asking the questions that seemed important to me and by reading and studying their answers I always felt that I was learning how to think and reason intelligently and logically. By being able to think intelligently and logically I felt that I was then better equipped to solve the problems of life - my life in particular. Richard Edward Noble - The Hobo Philosopher - Author of: "Hobo-ing America: A Workingman's Tour of the U.S.A.."

When one considers that the great philosophers of the twentieth century stand on the shoulders of Bertrand Russell, Alfred North Whitehead, A. J. Ayer, G. E. Moore, and Ludwig Wittgenstein, one has to place Russell in the foreground as the philosophers' philosopher. He writes with clarity and lucidity. His concerns are largely logical and epistemological. And this book centers around his principal concerns. I doubt that Russell would write this same book today, but I also doubt that he would fundamentally alter the positions he takes, if he were writing today. There is something neat, eloquent, and elegant about his epistemological premises that make this work (well beyond its 17th printing and more than eighty years old) such a venerable treasure trove. Could his positions be better articulated? Yes, but not by much. Would he delve more deeply into logic? Almost certainly. And he does, in other books written during his lifetime. This book is really for the novice. My only complaint is that the novice will probably remain lost if his readings did not encompass more logic and criticism of rational and empirical epistemology. What makes Russell a true "modern" in contemporary philosophy is his bridge to resolving both the rationalist and empiricist schools of thought. One not knowing these dichotomies might find Russell's resolution difficult to follow. Elsewhere in the book, Russell identifies "three" rules of thought, when these rules are no longer considered all that are extent. Generally, there are seven, sometimes nine, taught in most symbolic logic courses, and this discrepancy may needlessly cause confusion. So while the book is written for the novice, it bears re-reading after covering other contemporary writers. Russell and the others mentioned above are often associated with logical atomism, either directly or indirectly. Reading Russell or Ayer gives the student the best opportunity to do philosophy whilst learning it first hand. Both are explicit writers with Ayer perhaps having the upper hand. But, as with any philosophical school, such as logical atomism, there is always a counter reaction, and A. L. Austin's "Sense and Sensibility" is just such a reproach. Russell, like Ayer, uses the construct of "sense data" to explain the theory of knowledge; Austin and Gilbert Ryle redress both author's use of such "metaphysical" interpolations, which makes for an interesting contrast. Any reader of Russell or Ayer should counterbalance his reading with Austin's work. "The Problems of Philosophy" is not without gaps that may leave the reader puzzled by the omissions. Perhaps they weren't as obvious when Russell wrote this book, but they are clearer now in hindsight. An egregious omission is the absence of anything to do with ethics or moral theory. Since ethics is one of the few domains particular to philosophy alone, this omission is particularly troublesome in a book of this name. If I were to title the book, it would be "The Problems of Epistemology."

As a beginner in the study of philosophy, this book gave me much more than a clear and concise introduction to the subject by one of its great masters. It gave me an inspiring, enlightening glimpse of how philosophy could boost my capacity to enjoy life and become a better person. As pointed out by a previous reviewer, the last chapter of the book, "The Value of Philosophy", is a beautiful reflection on the personal rewards that result from philosophical contemplation. This chapter articulates an insight that grows slowly inside the reader throughout the book, caused by the amazement of being exposed to great philosophical questions for the first time. "...philosophy has a value (perhaps its chief value) through the greatness of the objects which it contemplates, and the freedom from narrow and personal aims resulting from this contemplation... The mind which has become accustomed to the freedom and impartiality of philosophic contemplation will preserve something of the same freedom and impartiality in the world of action and emotion... The impartiality which, in contemplation, is the unalloyed desire for truth, is the very same quality of mind which, in action, is justice, and in emotion is that universal love which can be given to all, and not only to those who are judged useful or admirable." If what sparked your curiosity about philosophy in the first place was the intuition that it would make you grow as a person in a very important sense, then this book is for you!

Not sure how to describe this book. I hate it and love it at the same time. It's presents an interesting exercise. You have to employ your own logic to prove the existence of everything around you. I come from a very scientific background - that is why I love this exercise in logic but I also hate it as it seems futile to not use axioms and just assume certain things. Well, I guess that's philosophy for you. If you're interested in the subject, this would be a good read. It would also be perfect for any student that is unsure if they want to pursue an education in philosophy. On the other hand, if you already know what philosophy is and you know that you don't like it, this book is not going to change that. Finally, the book is well written, there is even an attempt of humor but I would definitely not call it fun.

Recently I've decided to make philosophy a hobby of mine; I've taken a few courses covering various philosophy subjects in college, and I've enjoyed them so much that I want to learn more, required reading or not. Acquainted with most philosophy basics but not much more than that, I decided to start off by ordering a few books that appeared to outline general philosophical problems, to help open my eyes to interesting new subjects and give me focus and direction in my future reading. Russell's name was familiar to me, and the book's title implied that it was some sort of general overview, so I decided to start here. However, contrary to what I expect, I found that instead of the overview I was looking for, Russell's book focused primarily on matters of epistemology (theories of knowledge) and metaphysics (theories of reality). So, keeping that in mind, don't order this book expecting to become acquainted with all of the "Problems of Philosophy"; here, you're only going to be introduced to the topics that Russell is most enthusiastic about. Among them are questions such as "What is knowledge?", "What do we know for sure?", etc... You'll learn about logic, and Russell builds up a rather brilliant foundation for the entire philosophical process, but missing are the "layman's philosophies", subject such as ethics or political philosophy. Having said that, I thoroughly enjoyed Russell's book, and it was a great place to start for the beginning philosopher. At times, it was difficult to read; some of his sentences can be quite lengthy and full of logic, and this isn't what one might consider light reading. It takes effort, and you have to be interested in the subject for the book to actively keep your attention. However, Russell writes as clearly as the subject permits, and gives a fantastic introduction to basic theories of knowledge. And as other reviewers have pointed out, his last chapter is particularly notable, and will inspire and bring out the inner philosopher in any reader. I was initially disappointed when I found that this book wasn't an overview of the field, but, in hindsight, it actually served as a better starting place than any overview probably would have. Epistemology - the study of knowledge itself - is a great philosophical subject to start with, as it serves as the foundation upon which all other philosophy - the quest for knowledge - rests. I highly recommend Russell's "The Problems of Philosophy", as well as the philosopher himself - I'll certainly be sure to read more of his work in the future!

I first read this short and lucid introduction to many of the key questions addressed by Western philosophy back in 1968, as a new philosophy undergraduate. It gave me a key insight that helped my next 3 years - that the best way to understand philosophy is usually to read the works of the great philosophers themselves, rather than to read commentaries on them. Russell has a reputation for being hard work, simply I think because of his place as one of the great intellectuals of the 20th century. But this book, written as a young man, is clear and encourages the reader to think further about the ideas it explores. I bought this copy as a basis for discussion with my 10 year old son, who like many young people enjoys playing with philosophical ideas. Much of the vocabulary is naturally beyond him, but this also is an educational opportunity. Thoroughly recommended to anyone with an interest in philosophy.

Tipo houve engano. Não comprei.

Great intro to the subject matter. Goes well with his history of Western philosophy.

i enjoyed this book a lot.

Short, cheap. The last chapter "the value of philosophy" in his only 5 pages draws an unforgettable outline of the meaning of philosophy.