Scan barcode
A review by kevin_shepherd
The Problems of Philosophy by Bertrand Russell
4.0
Letting Schrodinger's Cat out of the proverbial bag...
"If the cat appears at one moment in one part of the room, and at another in another part, it is natural to suppose that it has moved from the one to the other, passing over a series of intermediate positions. But if it is merely a set of sense-data, it cannot have ever been in any place where I did not see it; thus we shall have to suppose that it did not exist at all while I was not looking, but suddenly sprang into being in a new place."
Still with me?
"If the cat exists whether I see it or not, we can understand from our own experience how it gets hungry between one meal and the next; but if it does not exist when I am not seeing it, it seems odd that appetite should grow during non-existence as fast as during existence. And if the cat consists only of sense-data, it cannot be hungry..."
Okay, I have to assume that Bertrand himself didn't have a cat because, if he had, he would have seen the obvious flaw in his analogy. If I feed my cat and never for an instant take my fucking eyes off of him, he will, within 35-40 seconds, be hungry again! You cannot use cat hunger as a measure of time, they are furry (but lovable) little black holes.
Feline fallacies aside, I would not recommend this book to anyone with just a passing interest in philosophy. This is philosophy 201, and though it is a short read it is not necessarily an easy read. There are passages that will surely weed out anyone who lacks the onus to grapple with the tenets of existentialism.
Is any of this useful? Does mental juggling, trying to keep seven balls in the air at the same time (one each for Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Berkeley, Hume, and Kant) doing anything to further the understanding of our place in the universe?
Russell points out that true philosophy is found only in the realm of the unanswerable questions, for as soon as definite answers become possible, the subject ceases to be philosophical and becomes science. Psychology, Physics, Astrophysics, and even Mathematics all had their origins in Philosophy.
Russell said it best...
"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 travelled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect."
Now go feed the cat.
"If the cat appears at one moment in one part of the room, and at another in another part, it is natural to suppose that it has moved from the one to the other, passing over a series of intermediate positions. But if it is merely a set of sense-data, it cannot have ever been in any place where I did not see it; thus we shall have to suppose that it did not exist at all while I was not looking, but suddenly sprang into being in a new place."
Still with me?
"If the cat exists whether I see it or not, we can understand from our own experience how it gets hungry between one meal and the next; but if it does not exist when I am not seeing it, it seems odd that appetite should grow during non-existence as fast as during existence. And if the cat consists only of sense-data, it cannot be hungry..."
Okay, I have to assume that Bertrand himself didn't have a cat because, if he had, he would have seen the obvious flaw in his analogy. If I feed my cat and never for an instant take my fucking eyes off of him, he will, within 35-40 seconds, be hungry again! You cannot use cat hunger as a measure of time, they are furry (but lovable) little black holes.
Feline fallacies aside, I would not recommend this book to anyone with just a passing interest in philosophy. This is philosophy 201, and though it is a short read it is not necessarily an easy read. There are passages that will surely weed out anyone who lacks the onus to grapple with the tenets of existentialism.
Is any of this useful? Does mental juggling, trying to keep seven balls in the air at the same time (one each for Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Berkeley, Hume, and Kant) doing anything to further the understanding of our place in the universe?
Russell points out that true philosophy is found only in the realm of the unanswerable questions, for as soon as definite answers become possible, the subject ceases to be philosophical and becomes science. Psychology, Physics, Astrophysics, and even Mathematics all had their origins in Philosophy.
Russell said it best...
"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 travelled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect."
Now go feed the cat.