Scan barcode
A review by ostrava
The Problems of Philosophy by Bertrand Russell
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).