kiboo's review against another edition
4.0
This book gave a good introduction to philosophy concepts and what Russell thought about them & the corresponding philosophers. Main concepts in the book that I enjoyed:
1. A priori knowledge and how we know things independent of experience. Knowing that 2+2=4 logically, without having to conjure up practical examples of what’s being added. Ethics can also be considered a priori
2. Acknowledging that we merely have sense data when experiencing things and cannot say what physical “matter” really is, even if we’re confident something independent of our private perception exists. It’s easy to confuse the thing being apprehended with the act of apprehension
3. Idealism - if we are looking at a tree, we believe that the tree still exists even when we close our eyes. Idealists (Bishop Berkeley in particular) believe that the tree continues to exist because it is an idea in the mind of God. All of our perceptions are a partial participation in God’s perceptions
1. A priori knowledge and how we know things independent of experience. Knowing that 2+2=4 logically, without having to conjure up practical examples of what’s being added. Ethics can also be considered a priori
2. Acknowledging that we merely have sense data when experiencing things and cannot say what physical “matter” really is, even if we’re confident something independent of our private perception exists. It’s easy to confuse the thing being apprehended with the act of apprehension
3. Idealism - if we are looking at a tree, we believe that the tree still exists even when we close our eyes. Idealists (Bishop Berkeley in particular) believe that the tree continues to exist because it is an idea in the mind of God. All of our perceptions are a partial participation in God’s perceptions
jpbaptista's review against another edition
5.0
Esta é uma obra fascinante, tanto pelo conteúdo, como pela forma de exposição. Para além de ser um filósofo genial – e um dos mais importantes e influentes do século XX – Bertrand Russell escrevia de forma perfeita (foi laureado com o nobel da literatura em 1950), conseguindo tratar de assuntos complexos com a clareza só permitida a quem os domina e sem os desfigurar através de uma simplificação ablativa.
O livro é uma “falsa” introdução à Filosofia. Falsa numa dupla acepção: porque não abarca a generalidade das áreas em que a Filosofia, enquanto ramo do saber, normalmente se subdivide; porque se torna menos acessível para quem não tenha um mínimo de conhecimento de filosofia, quer ao nível do tipo de raciocínios desenvolvidos, quer ao nível das temáticas abordadas.
Na verdade, Russell centra-se fundamentalmente em questões de epistemologia – teorias sobre a percepção, cepticismo, definição do conhecimento e suas modalidades –, para avançar para questões que haveriam de estar na base da actual Filosofia da Linguagem (teoria das descrições definidas, teoria descritivista dos nomes próprios), passando por alguma metafísica, pelo problema dos universais, pela Lógica, para terminar com uma defesa da necessidade e utilidade do conhecimento filosófico. Áreas tão importantes como a Ética, a Estética, a Religião, entre outras normalmente abordadas na Filosofia não são aqui tratadas.
É um percurso fascinante, que interpela e desafia o leitor a questionar aquilo que, normalmente, dá por adquirido e incontroverso, mostrando que por trás do aparentemente trivial se pode esconder um oceano de problemas, alguns deles ainda hoje sem solução consensual. E que, por isso, o questionamento crítico e filosófico é imprescindível se quisermos alargar os nossos horizontes intelectuais e evitar o fechamento embotador do hábito e do dogmatismo. Citando o final do livro, «através da grandeza do universo que a filosofia contempla, a mente também se torna grandiosa, e torna-se capaz dessa união com o universo que constitui o seu bem maior».
Esta nova edição conta com uma tradução de grande qualidade técnica e com uma preciosa introdução de Desidério Murcho, que dialoga com o Autor e que permite ao leitor fazer uma compreensão mais profícua e enquadrada da argumentação desenvolvida por Russell e da terminologia por si empregada.
O livro é uma “falsa” introdução à Filosofia. Falsa numa dupla acepção: porque não abarca a generalidade das áreas em que a Filosofia, enquanto ramo do saber, normalmente se subdivide; porque se torna menos acessível para quem não tenha um mínimo de conhecimento de filosofia, quer ao nível do tipo de raciocínios desenvolvidos, quer ao nível das temáticas abordadas.
Na verdade, Russell centra-se fundamentalmente em questões de epistemologia – teorias sobre a percepção, cepticismo, definição do conhecimento e suas modalidades –, para avançar para questões que haveriam de estar na base da actual Filosofia da Linguagem (teoria das descrições definidas, teoria descritivista dos nomes próprios), passando por alguma metafísica, pelo problema dos universais, pela Lógica, para terminar com uma defesa da necessidade e utilidade do conhecimento filosófico. Áreas tão importantes como a Ética, a Estética, a Religião, entre outras normalmente abordadas na Filosofia não são aqui tratadas.
É um percurso fascinante, que interpela e desafia o leitor a questionar aquilo que, normalmente, dá por adquirido e incontroverso, mostrando que por trás do aparentemente trivial se pode esconder um oceano de problemas, alguns deles ainda hoje sem solução consensual. E que, por isso, o questionamento crítico e filosófico é imprescindível se quisermos alargar os nossos horizontes intelectuais e evitar o fechamento embotador do hábito e do dogmatismo. Citando o final do livro, «através da grandeza do universo que a filosofia contempla, a mente também se torna grandiosa, e torna-se capaz dessa união com o universo que constitui o seu bem maior».
Esta nova edição conta com uma tradução de grande qualidade técnica e com uma preciosa introdução de Desidério Murcho, que dialoga com o Autor e que permite ao leitor fazer uma compreensão mais profícua e enquadrada da argumentação desenvolvida por Russell e da terminologia por si empregada.
sarah_dietrich's review against another edition
1.0
I don't enjoy this type of writing on philosophy at all.
7anooch's review against another edition
5.0
Clearest book of philosophy I’ve read to date. Russell writes really well.
capratz's review against another edition
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.75
Very interesting book to approach philosophy. The last chapter is a masterpiece
jhoover's review against another edition
2.0
Mostly upset because the title is very much a misnomer. The book is not an overview of problems in philosophy but “Betrand Russells thoughts on Epistemology”. Which is fine, but Id like a better idea of what I was in for. Any other branch of philosophy is obviously not worth thinking about according to Russell.
The work also seems like a polemic against Continental Philosophy in popular form. Russell wil give a bastardized and very brief view of Kant, Hegel, etc and then dismiss them quickly.
Thats not to say there arent interesting ideas. I thought his knowledge by description and summary of knowledge by induction was good. I think he gets fuzzier as he goes along and doesnt really have a convincing argument for how we actually know truths that doesnt reduce into a circular argument (in my understanding at least, Im open to rereading that section).
The last chapter I thought was by far the best and obviously the most passionate. I can totally buy some of these reasons for following philosophy. Interesting he seems to let go of his very logical and mathematical approach in that chapter and speak in almost spiritual terms, which I thought was interesting and a breath of fresh air.
The work also seems like a polemic against Continental Philosophy in popular form. Russell wil give a bastardized and very brief view of Kant, Hegel, etc and then dismiss them quickly.
Thats not to say there arent interesting ideas. I thought his knowledge by description and summary of knowledge by induction was good. I think he gets fuzzier as he goes along and doesnt really have a convincing argument for how we actually know truths that doesnt reduce into a circular argument (in my understanding at least, Im open to rereading that section).
The last chapter I thought was by far the best and obviously the most passionate. I can totally buy some of these reasons for following philosophy. Interesting he seems to let go of his very logical and mathematical approach in that chapter and speak in almost spiritual terms, which I thought was interesting and a breath of fresh air.
ostrava's review against another edition
3.0
This book is weird. It was written to be an introduction of gnosiology to non-philosophers, and if you read this and only this by the author, you would hardly understand why he was so appreciated as a master of the field (putting aside the fact that he was responsible for the analytical school of thought).
It's very dry. Sleep-inducingly so. Halfway through I had lost the point being made and kept reading almost for the sake of it, and yet, it should be clear for the reader what Russell's main argument was.
Philosophy has not resolved the problems of knowledge, and Russell considers his skepticism a fruit of the failed attempts that preluded his own investigations. He's a realist, an unredeemable atheist and he doesn't give a shit about no dogma. He may be dealing with complex matters, but while he writes like a logician ought to do, he's an ally of the inexperienced mind: he doesn't trust philosophers of the likes of Hegel any more than you would, and yet, he digs deep enough to make sense of it all. The conclusion to be taken from here is that Philosophy's job is not the study of the big answers that we can't answer. It should be seen instead a stimulation of our capacity for speculation and our curiosity, a field that should dedicate itself to put order to knowledge, rather than asset big truths for everyone to follow (that would be the job of dogma instead).
It was not an enjoyable read (I had to stop midway through to attend other things and did not miss it at all), but I can kind of see why others would appreciate it more.
Might come back when the topic interests me (probably, never).
It's very dry. Sleep-inducingly so. Halfway through I had lost the point being made and kept reading almost for the sake of it, and yet, it should be clear for the reader what Russell's main argument was.
Philosophy has not resolved the problems of knowledge, and Russell considers his skepticism a fruit of the failed attempts that preluded his own investigations. He's a realist, an unredeemable atheist and he doesn't give a shit about no dogma. He may be dealing with complex matters, but while he writes like a logician ought to do, he's an ally of the inexperienced mind: he doesn't trust philosophers of the likes of Hegel any more than you would, and yet, he digs deep enough to make sense of it all. The conclusion to be taken from here is that Philosophy's job is not the study of the big answers that we can't answer. It should be seen instead a stimulation of our capacity for speculation and our curiosity, a field that should dedicate itself to put order to knowledge, rather than asset big truths for everyone to follow (that would be the job of dogma instead).
It was not an enjoyable read (I had to stop midway through to attend other things and did not miss it at all), but I can kind of see why others would appreciate it more.
Might come back when the topic interests me (probably, never).