NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Appearance and Reality by Bertrand Russell Bertrand Russell is known as one of the best philosophers of the XX century. He wrote many books and became famous due to his exceptional approach of conceptual model of the universe. In order to understand better things that we can know about the table if looking from Russell's point of view (and from the own one based on his ideas and concepts) it would be useful to know about the worldview of Bertrand Russell. Russell's book Appearance and Reality is the classic philosophical work.
It was first published in 1912, has never been supplanted as an approachable introduction to the theory of philosophical enquiry. It shows Russell's beliefs on such subjects as the distinction between appearance and reality, the existence and nature of matter, idealism, and knowledge by acquaintance and by description, induction, truth and falsehood, the distinction between knowledge, error and probable opinion, and the limits and value of philosophical knowledge. In todays world, it is difficult to know just what is correct among the ideas of the universe, what we are and how we came to be, and how we should live as human beings and as a society. Bertrand Russell, an agnostic philosopher, approaches these questions and tries to answer them according to what science has proven throughout history. In a debate with F. C.
Copleston, Bertrand Russell was questioned on the existence of God. Russell states that his view is agnostic, meaning he is neutral. He does not say that he is for religion nor does he say that he is against religion. He just believes science must prove there is a God. Copleston adds that one should look for the existence of God and saying not to be dogmatic. Copleston then questions Russell's view of the universe.
Bertrand Russell answers that the word universe is a handy word in some connections, but I don't think it stands for anything that has meaning. He then goes on to state that The universe is just there, and that is all. In another debate with F. C. Copleston, Bertrand Russell is questioned on the subject of morals. Russell believes to understand if a mans morals are to be a sign of believing in God that must be proven.
He believes that distinguishing between good and bad are like seeing the difference in blue and yellow. You distinguish by looking at colors but you distinguish good and bad by feelings. People can make mistakes in that as they can in other things. Moral obligation, from Russell's view is that One has to take account of the effects, and I think right conduct is that which would probably produce the greatest possible balance in intrinsic value of all the acts possible in the circumstances, and you " ve got to take account of the probable effects of your action in considering what is right. He is explaining that for every action there is a reaction. He believes we should live as humans how we are taught or governed.
He believes that conditioned reflexes tell us what we should do and what we should not. It appears that Russell has developed a rich conception, involving a complex set of skills, dispositions and attitudes, which together delineate a virtue, which has both intellectual and moral aspects. It is a view, which is rooted in Russell's epistemological conviction that knowledge is difficult but not impossible to attain, and in his ethical conviction that freedom and independence in inquiry are vital. The body of a man is, from Russell's point of view, a combination of events. These events are clustered into groups.
Events that happen in our mind are considered thought while those that happen outside the mind are considered casual events. Mind and body are just convenient ways of organizing events. Of the mind is memory. The memory is thought to survive after death, however, the part of the brain that decays at death ceases to exist meaning that the memory would also.
He believes that the materialism opponents are correct in their desires to prove that the mind is immoral and that the ultimate power is mental rather then physical. Russell believes that each of us have a different conscience. He explains his theory with the example of wooden table. According to Russell, with this, we all have differing views of what is right and what is wrong. Our conscious cannot be relied on to determine what is right. We should live on what we believe such as religion, values, and morals.
However, conscience is a product of education, and it can be trained to approve or disapprove as educators see fit. It is a proven fact that if we act through desires of intelligence, happiness, and freedom of fear, men can be brought to act more than they do at the present in a manner that is consistent with the general happiness of mankind. Russell considers the good life one that is inspired by love and happiness. According to Russell, people should live as a society where free competition is in ideas not economics and justice is the arrangement of producing the least envy. Russell states that Miss McMillan is training children to create a free community.
If this could happen, it would solve our social problems. Yet we must teach children to live and let live from birth. He then goes on to state that Given men and women who do not desire the things which can only be secured through the misfortunes of others, the obstacles to social freedom will be at an end. In my opinion, Bertrand Russell's central arguments are very strong about the universe, his conception off humans, and how we should live.
The same general ideas of Russell were used in his Appearance and Reality He makes distinct examples of why we should turn to science to answer questions involving God and religion, our soul and mind, our vision and reality, and how we should act according to our vision of reality. If we were to question everything and pursue knowledge to the extent of becoming wise, we could learn to get along better with each other in society. Russell states, Intellectual sobriety, therefore, will lead up to scrutinize our beliefs closely, with a view to discovering which of them there is any reason to believe is true. I agree to an extent with Russell's point of view about God and religion. I believe religion is a way for people to comfort themselves.
People fear death and a way for them to be at ease is saying death is just the end of the physical and the soul will live on. Russell says that the memory-mind are apart of the brain that ceases to exist after death. If one ceases to exist then the other would also. He then goes on to say that, It is not rational arguments but emotions that cause a belief in a future life. I also agree with Russell about values and morals are different to everyone. We all have different preferences.
This preference is a matter of taste. One man may like apples while another prefers bananas. Everything revolves around taste. I disagree with Bertrand Russell that God has to be proven to exist. I believe there is a God; however, I am not convinced that Christianity is completely correct. I believe something had to create us and that something is an all-knowing being.
I also believe that there is a plan for all of us. We all do things for a reason. We may not know the reason now but in the end we understand why it happened. According to Bertrand Russell's worldview I am supposed to have somewhat formulated my own view. I would not call myself a Christian but I do believe in God.
I would also state that happiness is the key to living a good life and love is an emotion we all need to give and receive. Russell helped me to evolve my own ideas into something I can willingly share with others. I think that we all will have different ideas of what is God and how we approach serenity. I also can state that I have learned from Russell's philosophy that taking a scientific approach to any situation can better my understanding and broaden my view. Russell states, The pursuit of philosophy is founded on the belief that knowledge is good, even if what is known is painful. I was left with questions after discussing and reading about Russell's worldview.
He leaves me questioning Christianity and science. I believe that he does this due to how we can only prove certain things. I feel I must question everything and from this, I will be able to gain knowledge, because it is single way to capture something in mind thinking simply educates people. For this reason, having a look on the wooden table and processing all the collected information about this object it is possible to find not a solution to the problem, which I doubt to be possible, but to discover whether there is real table or not. The root of the debate over how things appear to be and how they really are stems from the ambiguity in the term to appear and similar phrases. The difference between how things seem and their reality is not just a simple matter.
There are two main groups of appearance idioms; these are seeming idioms and looking idioms. Seeming idioms include such expressions as appears to be, seems to be, and has the appearance of being. Looking idioms include such expressions as looks, appears, tastes, feels, and sounds. The line between these two groups of idioms is not always clear.
Uses of seeming idioms are to express what one believes is most likely the case or to express reluctance about what is specifically the case. Even though one thing may appear to be another, as in the case of the finger and water using the term appears means that if one saw the finger in the water without knowing the actual size of the finger, one would not be able to distinguish whether the finger was actually large or only seemed to be large. Looking idioms can be considered in three main respects, which must be kept separate. One can look to the sky and notice that a cloud resembles an animal. Here the appearance of the cloud is not in contrast with its reality, rather what seems to be is since the cloud does look like something other than a cloud. This is noticing a visual resemblance between the cloud and the animal, meaning that this is a reality because it does not contrast with what is possibly a reality.
This does not mean that the cloud appears to be an animal or just looks but actually is not an animal; the difference cannot be inferred from the statement appears. When describing the appearance of something, it is simply enough to describe what is visible, audible, and tactile. These descriptions tell how something is, not how it looks or appears. In this case, what qualities appear to be is what they really are.
Mere appearance shows that there is a looking idiom, which is neutral in respect to how things are. For example, X merely looks red suggests that X is not actually red. However, saying that X looks red one cannot differentiate between X being red or X not being red. However, if X can look (sound, feel, and taste) red, then X must at least possibly be red. Man is the measure of all things- alike of being of things that are and of the non-being of things that are not. Any given thing is to me such as it appears to me, and is to you such as it appears to you.
Protagoras. This quote can be interpreted in two ways, depending on whether the use of appears is as a seeming or a looking idiom. Each persons interpretation is valid; not one can be justified more than another can because each viewpoint is one persons reality. A thing can appear to be two different ways to two people, but it cannot logically be both. A conclusion of this paradox is not possible because one view cannot be determined as the reality, thus blurring the line between appearance and reality.
There is an argument from illusion, which is because things sometimes appear in different natures to different observers or to the same observer in different circumstances. The argument states that qualities described by the senses are not really part of things because if a thing can look (smell, sound, taste, feel) different to different people, in different situations or when they are supposedly really a different way, we can never determine exactly what quality really applies to the object. Therefore, the quality, which can never be determined due to the absence of the concept of object, cannot actually be the object. We cannot say what qualities things have, only what qualities they appear to have. This suggests that there can be no such thing as colored bodies, because color can never be determined. Other paradoxes are based on the same principle of existing things contradicting themselves.
Zeno's paradoxes for example claim the impossibility of motion, multiplicity, empty space and time, and when to us all these things appear to exist. According to F. H. Bradley in Appearance and Reality, all these things are unreal as such because they contradict themselves; hence they are mere appearances: or contradictory appearances. When we actually stop to think about a simple everyday object such as a table, what it is composed of is it real, and then the world looks different to us.
We no longer take ordinariness for granted. Russell further expands this idea, which is the area I most agree with him. Philosophy helps the person to rise above his Self or escapes the bondage of Self. As Russell explains knowledge, we gain from philosophic contemplation increases the world around us. In the spirit of many eastern philosophies on the topic of enlightenment, he continues to explain we should not seek this. Also trying to bind the world as an extension of Self, keeps us consumed with Self.
I think these are major points. He acknowledges the fact that some mysteries are greater than our minds can conceive and their purposes is to keep man from staying put in his own little world that is different from the world of another man. Therefore, if to go back to the question whether there is real wooden table, it is possible to make a conclusion that a real wooden table is some general concept that was created by people. Wooden table is the table that is made from wood therefore, there is real wooden table. However, it is possible to claim that the material from what the table is done is not wood at all, or the table can be painted etc. As for the concept of wooden table is understandable, however, I find it somehow abstract.
In my opinion, the real wooden table exists and there is no doubt about it. Wooden table that is made from wood is the real wooden table, however, if somebody has never seen a table and after reading Russell's description (lets assume that Russell would make a complete description of that object) become familiar with what is considered a wooden table. Then another thing could happen, this person would see some other table that would be made from wood and its owner would say that it is wooden table, the person that has in the imagination the concept of wooden table that was created by Russell would not agree that the table just shown is wooden. It sound a little difficult to understand, but in my opinion, everything depends not on objects properties, but rather on the perception of that object. Therefore, if there is one kind of perception then wooden table exists. The similar example could be with colors.
We all know what is blue and green. Nevertheless, what if I see blue and call this color blue and somebody else sees actually green, which is called blue. For me this color is green, but I cannot know what is the vision of that color another person has. I would also argue that the answers are not necessary to have value in the questions themselves. First off that is what philosophy is built on attempting to answer the unanswerable. Previous concept of color shows that object can be of any sort.
It all just depends on the perception of that object. However, there is no doubt that the object (table) is wooden if it was made out of wood. For a majority of us this wooden table probably appears similar. Therefore, if wooden table is made out of wood then it is wooden table. Bibliography: Kaplan, David (1970) "What is Russell's Theory of Descriptions?" , in Your grau, Wolfgang, and Allen D. Breck, (eds), Physics, Logic, and History, New York: Plenum, 277 - 288.
Weitz, Morris (1944) "Analysis and the Unity of Russell's Philosophy", in Schilpp, Paul Arthur (ed. ), The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell, 3 rd ed. , New York: Tudor, 1951, 55 - 121. Clark, Ronald William (1981) Bertrand Russell and His World, London: Thames and Hudson. Irvine, A. D. , and G. A.
Wedding (eds) (1993) Russell and Analytic Philosophy, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Free research essays on topics related to: good life, wooden table, made out of wood, bertrand russell, appearance and reality
Research essay sample on Appearance And Reality By Bertrand Russell
