Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The value of philosophy Bertrand Russell essay
Essay of bertrand russell
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The value of philosophy Bertrand Russell essay
In the two articles that I read “Lost in the Clouds” by Alexander George, and “The Value of Philosophy” by Bertrand Russell, I think I agree more with what Russell said. Both of the articles are about how Philosophy should be done. I think that the two authors have different point of views when it comes to their idea of philosophy. Alexander George says Philosophy can be done at a dinner table or just about anywhere, you can do it with your friends and family. He says that philosophy can be enjoyable and fun, it doesn’t have to be done in isolation. In his article Bertrand Russell says that Philosophy is very abstract. Philosophy is unlike any type of science and that it doesn’t have any utilities likes science does. You shouldn’t just use …show more content…
Many of them thought that philosophy should be done at the dinner table. George then starts to talk about Plutarch, a Greek Philosopher who lived during the classical era were philosophy focused on politics. Plutarch believed that philosophy should be discussed at a dinner table. It should be serious but also have some fun while you’re doing it. Plutarch said that the love of wisdom shouldn’t only be practical it should also be fun with a serious effort. “In Plutarch’s eyes, the philosopher is a man who sprinkles seriousness into a silly conversation; he gives advice and offers counsel, but prefers a discussion to a conversation-hogging monologue. He likes to exchange ideas but does not enjoy aggressive arguments. And if someone at his dinner-table seems timid or reserved, he’s more than happy to add some extra wine to the shy guest’s cup.” (Lost in the Clouds) because of electism Plutarch’s work is often looked past because it’s not refined as Plato or Socrates. George at the end of the article says that philosophy is difficult but that you shouldn’t forget that it’s
In “Hidden Intellectualism,” Gerald Graff pens an impressive argument wrought from personal experience, wisdom and heart. In his essay, Graff argues that street smarts have intellectual potential. A simple gem of wisdom, yet one that remains hidden beneath a sea of academic tradition. However, Graff navigates the reader through this ponderous sea with near perfection.
When I think of a philosopher, I think of something that gets people to ask questions and think. This is exactly what Socrates did for the people of Athens. He is accused of doing wrong when he is just trying to help advance society. Another thing that makes him a great philosopher is the fact that he sticks to his morals throughout. He has the ability to escape prison, but he knows that would go against all of his teachings.
In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke proposes an idealized state of nature in which men are self-sufficient and content. The implications of his idealized population lead him to derive the existence of government from its own theoretical roots: Locke proposes government as a naturally occurring consequence of his state of nature. This derivation is founded on the injustice of man in his natural state: it is the imperfections found in the state of nature that necessitate government. This paper aims to show why the inequality caused by the existence of a market economy is an intentional and necessary path from Locke’s state of nature to the existence of the commonwealth. It will first argue that unequal possession is an inevitable consequence of property as defined by Locke. It will then show why this inequality is a necessary transition out of the state of nature for mankind. It will finally argue that each man’s consent to currency, and the injustice it brings, is the foundation for the overall consent to the commonwealth. The existence of inequality is naturally introduced and maintained throughout Locke’s argument. Hobbes successfully defends that economic inequality is both a natural and crucial part of political society; both the inequality of human ability and the resulting economic inequality precede the existence of an ideal state.
In the article “Reading and Thought” the author Dwight MacDonald provides criticism and disagreement with Henry Luce’s idea of “functional curiosity”. Luce developed the term “functional curiosity” defining it as an eagerness of people to know the latest news happening around the world. On the other hand, MacDonald concludes that functional curiosity only strengthens reader’s practice in reading rather than in providing invaluable information. He underlines that literature nowadays is deficient and insubstantial since there is no deep meaning in the texts. Modern printed literature is simply being skimmed through by the reader as the reader nowadays tends to avoid too much information resisting thinking in such a way. Because of the new nature of the printed materials, MacDonald considers today’s reading behavior and the way people think as flimsy and indifferent. I agree that our thought has definitively changed since we are paying less time to serious critical thinking losing connections with society and awareness of it.
In his book entitled Reclaiming the Enlightenment: toward a Politics of Radical Engagement Stephen Eric Bronner explores the problem or issue associated with the modern political life described as the disorientation of the intellectuals, as well as activism on the left. Stephen Eric Bronner argues that the usurping of theory and political history by the cultural criticism has resulted to a confusion regarding the objectives, as well as the origin or genesis of the progressive politics. In particular, Stephen Eric Bronner contend that it has increasingly becomes fashionable for the intellectual to offensively attack enlightenment simply because of its eurocentrism, imperialism, scientism, and racism and sexism of some of its critical representatives.
The book “The worldly philosophers” is an analysis of great minds’ contributions to the field of economics with a broader view of crucial economic aspects that include political and social factors. In that respect, this analysis summarizes the author’s view of what economics comprise of in light of their analysis of different economists’ contributions. Further, the analysis explains the author’s view on the subject of comparative advantage citing the book’s strengths and weaknesses as well as the author’s position on the subject. Finally, the analysis provides reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with the authors’ position.
You are in an argument with your friend, would you rather be the one who is winning or the one who actually takes something away from the argument? This was the case for Protagoras and Socrates throughout the text Protagoras. Protagoras represented sophists, while Socrates represented philosophers. A sophist is a teacher of virtue, they twist what is being said to make it positive. They make others into skillful speakers. Philosophers are those who want to know what is true and want to be wise. Both had different points within the argument which is what made them different. While Protagoras wants to win the argument, Socrates wants to learn something from it, that is what exactly virtue is. There is a clear difference between philosophers and sophists, and I think it is better to be a philosophist.
Sometimes the questions that philosophers ask upset many people. After Socrates explains to others why he is wiser than they are, Socrates knows that he is “hateful both to him and to many others. After this, then, I kept going to one after another, all the while perceiving with pain and fear that I was becoming hated” (Plato, 21e). Socrates knew that the questions he was asking were angering others, but philosophers must try to obtain knowledge at all costs. In Socrates’ real life, the Athenians get fed up with him and put him on trial, but in Aristophanes’ Clouds, Strepsiades gets so angry at Socrates for turning his son against him, he lights the thinkery on fire, yelling, “Someone bring me a torch! I too will make one of them pay the penalty
Philosophy is amongst the most difficult and challenging subjects anyone can discuss. Philosophy has changed throughout the years and it can be inquiring and critical. Most philosophers have different theories on how the world should be and there are many issues and questions that arise. What is real; what is truth; what is good; is the mind something separate from the body; and are we free, or are our actions determined so that we no longer have any control or influence? Immanuel Kant and Ayn Rand are two Philosophers that are respected for their different philosophies. Their lives, influences, and thoughts of how we should be as a society are ideas that make them so different.
Socrates then introduces the idea that, since they have come to understand these truths and amassed great amounts of knowledge, the philosopher is humble, and is humbled by the enormity of the truths and knowledge. This knowledge and these truths also make the philosopher courageous as he no longer fears his death. The philosopher is also considered the optimal leader due to his disregard for wealth and material goods, Socrates clarifies that since his energy and desire are all concentrated on knowledge and truth his appetite will mimic that of a stream, with his mind flowing in the direction of “learning and everything like it” (485d) Socrates says that, assuming he is a “true philosopher, a genuine lover of wisdom, and not a pretend lover of wisdom” (485e) that the pleasures of the mind will be more than enough for
Johnathan Robert’s life has been characterized by a keen ability to self teach. At two years old, he suffered an accident that broke his femur. Within weeks of his caste being removed, he relearned the skill of walking. At no older than six years old Johnathan had received numerous ear surgeries yet refused to allow his speech to reflect any of his hearing loss. By the age of seven, he had effectively taught himself how to read and write. According to the philosophy of John Locke, Johnathan’s knowledge did not come from innate ideas or principles, but rather from experiences and sensations. Although John Locke’s thoughts were monumental, flaws exist in the rejection of innate ideas.
About the year of 470 B.C, a man was born in Athens and his name was Socrates. He was a son of a working sculptor and a midwife. Socrates lived in the greatest and most exciting period of his country's history, when Athens developed from a mere city-state to be the head of an empire. He studied problems of Physics, Biology, and other sciences, and learned the art of making the worse argument appear the better. He could easily be involved in public decisions but he did not enjoy politics so he stuck to his interests and life that consisted the qualities of a thinker. He would constantly be thinking about the "ordinary man" and the interests of an "ordinary man". He had many companions, men of all ages and from all parts of the Greek world. This already tells us that he is very pre-occupied with how other people's minds worked and if he could figure out how to teach them rational thinking. Easily most of his ideas would come from talking to other people
Socrates, to name a few. Each man at the dinner party has a different point of
Bertrand Russell explains in his article that the value of philosophy is not in the definite answers, but in the questions and possibilities that it raises. He states that “The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty.” This can relate to the Milesians, the answers they came up with weren’t important, but the process used to get them. He says that the more we practice philosophy the more we begin to question everyday things in our life, and we come to find that the answers are only bigger questions. These questions lead to limitless possibilities, broadened horizons, and freedom from what we “know”. Russell hints that philosophy can help you see things in a different light, in a sense taking off the rose colored glasses and seeing the world for what it is.
Philosophy can be defined as the pursuit of wisdom or the love of knowledge. Socrates, as one of the most well-known of the early philosophers, epitomizes the idea of a pursuer of wisdom as he travels about Athens searching for the true meaning of the word. Throughout Plato’s early writings, he and Socrates search for meanings of previously undefined concepts, such as truth, wisdom, and beauty. As Socrates is often used as a mouthpiece for Plato’s ideas about the world, one cannot be sure that they had the same agenda, but it seems as though they would both agree that dialogue was the best way to go about obtaining the definitions they sought. If two people begin on common ground in a conversation, as Socrates often tries to do, they are far more likely to be able to civilly come to a conclusion about a particular topic, or at least further their original concept.