The Problems of Philosophy, by Bertrand Russell

[Lawrence]

The posts on the non-fiction forum ACFTH indicates to me there could be a benefit to take a harder look at the difficulty humanity has with its understanding of knowledge.

The Problems of Philosophy, by Bertrand Russell

Chapter 1. Appearance and Reality

Is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it? This question, which at first sight might not seem difficult, is really one of the most difficult that can be asked. When we have realized the obstacles in the way of a straightforward and confident answer, we shall be well launched on the study of philosophy-for philosophy is merely the attempt to answer such ultimate questions, not carelessly and dogmatically, as we do in ordinary life and even in the sciences, but critically, after exploring all that makes such questions puzzling, and after realizing all the vagueness and confusion that underlie our ordinary ideas.

[Interbane]

I ascribe to this wholeheartedly. If you've followed my posts, you'll have seen me claim that our understanding of reality should start with faith in our senses, which is a simple faith, and not the complex faith of religion. Only then can we start trusting our sense(which may be folly!), and forming an understanding of the world. It also serves to deconstruct everything you're "certain" about so that it may be re-examined and never simply assumed to be true. Our five senses don't offer us a perfect interface with reality, and the whole universe can't be compressed into our little skulls. Our most certain memories are actually only vague impressions, with the rest of the memory reconstructed by our fabulous brain. As long as confidence doesn't become arrogance, we may hold things as provisionally certain, but never absolutely certain.

[Lawrence]

Yippee for Interbane. I think I'm making him a believer in my essay. Preach it big man. We are on a roll. Where is President Commacho now?

[Interbane]

Thanks Lawrence. I've had that mentality for a while though, after many deep discussions with an old booktalker named MadArchitect.

Analyzing your essay is fun and helpful(to both of us, I hope). I've never said I disagreed with it, but I did say I would play devil's advocate and tear into it to find any flaws. A majority of our discussion right now is over the disambiguation of concepts and terms, which is normal. If only we could create essays with fudge brownies rather than words. That would be messy though.

Have you read of how Russel influenced Logical Positivism, which then influenced Karl Popper's work, where he offered the solution of 'falsifiability' as the criterion of demarcation for science? I've read a few of Popper's books, which build on Russel's ideas. He has a book called "Objective Knowledge" which is very deep and interesting. The name itself makes one curious.

[Lawrence]

Yes, I am taken aback by the turn taken in the dialogue at ACFTH forum. I erroneously presumed in writing the essay that folks knew the fragile state of knowing what we know and why we know it. Therefore my essay never intended to discuss the state of philosophy of this topic. I did enjoy the early linguists' work and Chomsky when he was young and now Pinkus. I read a review of Popper and enjoyed it. I know I would enjoy his work but at the time I really didn't want to focus on the philosophical state of our knowledge.

Maybe if Chris chooses Russell's work for BT we can recommend Popper the next month. Thanks again for your interest.

[Thrillwriter]

Lawrence,

I am reading your essay. I apologize for not getting to it sooner but alas, I have had too much on my plate over the last few weeks.
I must say it is thought provoking, and deep.

So, out of all that I have read thus far, I developed a new thesis for my view of life... We need to drop our preconceived notions. Dump our presuppositions. Just meditate on this material with an impartial mind. Does this stuff have "metaphysical" implications? Sure. But why should that deter us from logically examining the evidence? Where did we get the notion that science and technology somehow have to exist in a naturalistic vacuum? That's not true science. True science is observing the evidence, creating a hypothesis, and testing that hypothesis through various means. Philosophical presuppositions have no place in true science. If science reveals things outside the bounds of known physics, then science should be applauded for its impartial contribution to philosophical and metaphysical thought.

Please tell me if I am way off base, because of course, a reader /listener takes from the speaker/writer what he believes to be the meaning hawever it may not be the true intention of the author.
I am enjoying the read and look forward to reading the remainder and contemplating the meaning. You oviously have a true gift my friend. Thank you for sharing it with the world. I will read some more and reflect and write to you again.
Diana