All About Books discussion

Discuss our group read 'The Problems of Philosophy' by Bertrand Russell here.

As usual, this thread is open all of February and March (and after that if you are reading later in the year) for discussion, but for those of you who would prefer a more in depth, chapter by chapter discussion, we've decided to stagger our group reads for February and March and come up with a schedule which you are welcome to follow.

The book has 15 chapters in total and is about 116 pages long. It is available from Project Gutenberg here: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5827

For those who would like to read both our philosophy group reads or/and would like to follow the discussion schedule:

1st - 7th Feb. : chapter I - V
8th - 14th Feb. : chapter VI - X
15th - 21th Feb.: chapter XI - XV

Happy reading!

P.S: Should we all get lost in the process, there's Sparknotes to save us! ;)
http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/...

I like the schedule Jenny! And thanks for the Sparknotes link - I may need it, although Russell's writing is generally straightforward...

I agree, I've read A History of Western Philosophy a while back and thought it was extremely approachable even without much of a philosophical background.

Oh and I found a great audio version for The Republic in case I can tempt you ;)

I like the look of sparknotes. Must have a browse there some time.

Jenny wrote: "I agree, I've read A History of Western Philosophy a while back and thought it was extremely approachable even without much of a philosophical background.

Oh and I found a great audi..."

Yes, that is the Russell I have - I never read it all the way but just dipped into it here and there.

As for Plato, I am thinking about it - I have the paperback book from my college days. It would fit in nicely with my CAT #3 ("The Real Classics") for my personal challenge, but I am also thinking about reading Marcus Aurelius's Meditations...

Uh, I will definitely join in with this one should you get to it this year, I've been wanting to read this forever!

Jack wrote: "There's a great bit in there about DH Lawrence where he calls him something like 'a strange little creature'. Its an awesome takedown!
"

Oh yes, Bertrand is definitely good at those! LOL.
I wonder whether he'll be able to restrain himself in this one, because 'The History of Western Philosophy' had quite a few of them as well. He does know how to entertain, though honestly I could have done with a bit more attempted objectivity ;)

Jenny wrote: "Jack wrote: "There's a great bit in there about DH Lawrence where he calls him something like 'a strange little creature'. Its an awesome takedown!
"

Oh yes, Bertrand is definitely good at those! ..."

Your comment raised a philosophical question in my mind, re: attempted objectivity -- perhaps Russell felt that objectivity isn't possible so why pretend? After all, even supposedly "objective" observers and critics are influenced by their times & culture...

I think I'll give this a go as it's completely different from what I usually read, so it should be interesting :-).

Glad you are joining Caolán!

OK, I've been trying to wait until the start of February to post this, but the temptation is too great to wait any longer!
Here is a limerick that my father loved to recite when we were children. It sums up the first two chapters of Russell's book extremely succinctly:

God in the Quad
A limerick by Monsignor Ronald Knox

There was a young man who said, "God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there's no one about in the Quad."

REPLY

Dear Sir:
Your astonishment's odd:
I am always about in the Quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be,
Since observed by
Yours faithfully,
GOD.

I LOVE IT!!

Except that I just said to Chris, "Do you know a limerick called "God in the Quad"? Whereupon he put down the shopping (!) and proceeded to recite it to me. Plus the reply *sigh* Talk about raining on my parade.

Still, he couldn't remember who it was by! And I got a giggle from it, thanks Gill :D

Jean wrote: "I LOVE IT!!

Except that I just said to Chris, "Do you know a limerick called "God in the Quad"? Whereupon he put down the shopping (!) and proceeded to recite it to me. Plus the reply *sigh* Talk ..."
That's funny!

I'd have liked to know your Dad, Gill :)

Want to start this book early this week.

I started to read a little bit of this yesterday. I'm on chapter three now. The main idea that I have gathered from it so far is that tables are very complicated things.

Caolán wrote: "I started to read a little bit of this yesterday. I'm on chapter three now. The main idea that I have gathered from it so far is that tables are very complicated things."

Lol!

Jean wrote: "I LOVE IT!!

Except that I just said to Chris, "Do you know a limerick called "God in the Quad"? Whereupon he put down the shopping (!) and proceeded to recite it to me. Plus the reply *sigh* Talk ..."

Really funny, and up to the point! I'd have liked to meet your father as well Gill

LOL Caolán, yes they are indeed. Just finished chapter two as well, and so far I think the book does a great job at explaining one of the core-questions of philosophy: that of appearance and reality. From what I have read, his table-analysis of reality actually became quite famous.

@Gill: I love the Limerick! And yes, very apt indeed ;)

I had forgotten what philosophy actually ment! Short but tough.

I won't be starting this for a few more days but Gill's post with the poem is wonderful!

I am crawling like a tortoise through this to make sure I retain the concepts...

I'm still waiting to get my copy from the library.

Just finished chapter three. Phrases like 'we might just suppose' that Russell uses, are things I've always found tricky. I've sat in too many meetings where people have said 'I'm sure we all agree that .....' in order to get their own way.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm finding it hard to read Russell critically; I can't really distinguish as to which arguments he criticizes that I agree with him and which ones I don't.
Sorry, if that's not very clear.
Maybe I should just read the book!

That's what I did!!!!

I know what you mean, Gill. He is representing other philosophers' thoughts, and I'm finding it hard to distinguish which are his and which theirs - and it has been said that he sometimes misinterpreted or at least misrepresented their theories anyway.

Need to get a lot further on. Not at all sure I'll make the end of chapter 5 by Friday.

That's really interesting, because so far I have the feeling he's doing a really good job at giving an introduction to epistemology (the theory of knowledge), and though obviously he sees through his lense, this is the most 'objective' book I've read by him so far.
I am not sure I understood you right though Gill, are you critizising that you find it hard to see where he stands in all this, or do you find him pushing too hard for his own standpoint in the whole realism/idealism debate in a rhetorically fishy way?

I am surprised that Plato hasn't been metioned yet. Now I am not sure exactly when these terms where coined in philosophy (and they obviously mean different things as philosophical terms than in our general way of using them) but the first time I read about idealism and realism as philosophical terms was when still stuck in the deep middle ages reading about the 'problem of universals' . All schools of thought at the time would at some point instrumentalize Plato or Aristoteles in order to justify their theory, though both were in fact neither idealist or realists in the pure sense.

Does anyone recognize the confusion though? I remember that reading Hermann Hesse when I was a teenager somehow sparked this whole process of questioning each and everything, and for days everywhere I went I would be thinking: what if this is all just in my head? Or I would try to compare my 'red' to a friends 'red' and we realized there's no words to properly describe colour or smell in any way satisfying and then we tried to imagine the world without colour and so on and so on and so on (I realize I had much more time back then ;))

And Jean, don't worry, take your time, this thread doesn't run away.

Jenny, yes I mean he is pushing for his own point of view. To use your Hesse example, if you really get into the 'it's all in my head' view, it's as if Russell then says 'it's all right dear, i know more than you and really it's like this'

I think I might take a go at this, I've read Bertrand Russell before and he's generally upbeat and moderately easy to understand (as far as philosophy goes).

Thanks Jenny, I'm hoping to stay on target viz your planner, though you and Gill are racing ahead!! One chapter a day for me :)

I'm making lots of notes, but yes, I think he "fudges" the philosophical standpoints of other Philosophers. I too think he does quite a good job of briefly describing their theories, which is what I wanted from the book, but then he segues into his own, and I can't always tell where the join is!

For instance with Descartes, he describes his "method of systematic doubting", and talks about how Descartes thought the most subjective things are the most certain.

But then Russell goes on to talk about different times when you might look at a table, and how we cannot be sure that these sensations are the result of the same sense-data. "It is momentary and not the something which has some different experience the next moment."

Now is this still Descartes' theory? Or has it become Russell's take on it? Or does Russell often interpret other Philosophers' ideas in a way he favours?

I haven't picked up a patronising edge yet though. And I LOVED this observation:

"Whoever wishes to become a Philosopher must learn not to be frightened by absurdities."

I must remember that! When reading this I keep being distracted by doubts; I think that I don't understand a position (such as Berkeley's "Mind of God") whereas the truth is probably that I just don't agree with it!

It is the hardest discipline for this reason, I think, that you have to continually suspend your "disbelief" in a theory.

Jean wrote: "Thanks Jenny, I'm hoping to stay on target viz your planner, though you and Gill are racing ahead!! One chapter a day for me :)

I'm making lots of notes, but yes, I think he "fudges" the philosoph..."


I found taking notes and rereading the passage over several times helped me grasp that concept. Theories like idealism are tricky to imagine.

I, also enjoyed the bit on not being "frightened by absurdities". It's definitely a mental process to put those absurdities aside and really allow myself to consider far-out ideas that seem like they're rejecting reality!

Just finished chapter one. Looking forward to getting back to the table tomorrow.

Jenny wrote: "Does anyone recognize the confusion though? I remember that reading Hermann Hesse when I was a teenager somehow sparked this whole process of questioning each and everything, and for days everywhere I went I would be thinking: what if this is all just in my head?"
Indeed I had the same memory! ANd this is somethingn that has always puzzled me about philosophy.
Coincidence: I'm reading at the moment La famiglia Karnowski and the son changes his studies from philosophy to medicine mainly because the love of a woman but also because her father points out how philosophy creates doubts, medicine solves problems. But this is what Russel will say in the end ...

Alper - no it's not the concept I was questioning. Like you, I take notes and reread until I think I understand the tricky ones.

If you read my post again you will see that what I was questioning was whether this is Descartes' idea or Russell's continuation of it. When I used words such as "fudges" and "segues", I meant that the distinctions in attributing it to a particular philosopher are not clear - the "authorship" if you like - not that the concepts are difficult! (Which of course, they are :))

I agree Alper, Idealism and so forth are difficult to grasp. Jenny, yes I do think the Philosophical theory of "Idealism" (as opposed to an everyday interpretation of the word) pre-dated the Middle Ages by quite a way. Plato, most likely as you suggested? Maybe it'll come up in the next read?

Well you see, I am not sure whether the term existed then, I think the term might be indeed have been coined around the 'problems of universals' debate (but then I am really not sure), it's just that once a category like this is in the world, you are going to want to fit things into it. The funny thing about Plato and Aristoteles is that both camps tried fit them into theirs, or at least justify their camp based on both of their theories (though none of them is really either).

I'm really not sure when the term was first used, Jenny. Maybe this will be something to discuss in the Plato thread? I don't feel I have the knowledge to "elucidate" further...

I see what you mean now Jean. I agree the author doesn't do a great job at that.

Hopefully I will soon develop more intelligent opinions on this (like the rest of you! :) ) I'm on chapter five and at the moment I'm still trying to just get a grasp of 'sense-data' and whatnot. But I trust this will change once I get a chance to think about it a bit more.

I'm on Chapter 5 too Caolan! One a day...

Slow and steady's the key, I think. I well remember at school many a time being the first to finish a chapter of (say) Geography we were told to read...and not having the faintest idea of what I'd read! LOL

Ah! Russell doesn't like Berkeley's ideas!!

I hpoe you guys are enjoying it mire than I did! Shame really!

I like the sound of this review by Manny

Charbel wrote: "I hpoe you guys are enjoying it mire than I did! Shame really!"

Enjoy is not the right word I'm afraid Charbell: I've found it interesting, stimulating, a bit absurd in parts, but... enjoying it, mmm difficoult to say!

I've just downloaded this and the Plato one to my kindle so I can join in as it all sounds very interesting! I'm not sure if I will have anything intelligent to add - will have to see how my braincell (singular) is feeling - but looking forward to getting stuck in as it's the first philosophy I'll have read since leaving 6th form.

I'm only on chapter 4 and I'm not exactly loving it, but then I've never really liked those sort of questions such as 'if a tree falls in a forest and there's nobody to hear, does it make a sound?' as to me the obvious answer is yes it does! I really don't like the language style or wording much either.

You see, call me masochist, but I am personally enjoying the sound of my squeaking braincells. ;)
However, it does make me wonder whether as you adopt this philosophical way of thinking professionally - which often means taking nothing for granted, and questioning everything till it bleeds out a bit of truth (if you're lucky)- how one remains a functioning member of society.

Now this is in part a joke question, because I found myself talking to my table the other day (in my head only, I haven't lost it completely) sort of going through the things that I know about it and think to know about it though I am told I can't know about them.
But it is in part also a very serious question. This sentence stuck with me somehow and seems quite related to me: "All knowledge, we find, must be built up upon our instinctive beliefs, and if these are rejected, nothing is left"

I can't read the book because my library doesn't have it..what a pity! But I'm following your discussion. :)
I study philosophy at high school (and I would really like to study philosophy at university too), and the last year we studied Descartes! So,

Jean wrote: For instance with Descartes, he describes his "method of systematic doubting", and talks about how Descartes thought the most subjective things are the most certain.

But then Russell goes on to talk about different times when you might look at a table, and how we cannot be sure that these sensations are the result of the same sense-data. "It is momentary and not the something which has some different experience the next moment."

Now is this still Descartes' theory? Or has it become Russell's take on it? Or does Russell often interpret other Philosophers' ideas in a way he favours?

In my opinion the phrase that Jean has reported seems like something that Descartes would have thought too, but only in a first step of his philosophy, in the moment when he doubts of everything in an absolute way. But his method achieves the certainty of the possibility of knowing in a scientific way (through many steps, probably the book have talked about them) in the final step.
I can think that Bretch doesn't share the same conclusions, but he agrees with the premises. :)

Out of curiosity, what did you think of Idealism and Kant? :)

Jenny wrote: "You see, call me masochist, but I am personally enjoying the sound of my squeaking braincells. ;)
However, it does make me wonder whether as you adopt this philosophical way of thinking professiona..."

Du you really think that nowadays there are people who actuoally "live" and "think" that way constantly? I doubt it...

Thank you Anastasia :) You have made the dividing line clearer for me between what Descartes thought, and the accuracy of Russell's reported ideas.

I do suspect Russell has a tendency to "overlay" the philosophical concepts he is trying to convey with his own interpretation of them. He says what he thinks they should mean, rather than what the philosopher actually did mean.

Sorry, I have not heard of Bretch and have not read Kant (although have sat in on many conversations between people who have. And his Critique of Pure Reason used to prop up our phone along with Russell's A History of Western Philosophy , although that in itself probably shows that neither were read very often...)

Anastasia, maybe you could give us your views on Kant, especially as they pertain to this book?

Jenny and Laura - yes, it is odd to look at professional philosophers and think "but you have to go and buy potatoes like everybody else!" But don't you think they must vary like everybody else? Some will be depressives. Some will be very self-involved, and if they are lucky will end up living in a University like Oxford, protected to a large extent from the outside world, and able to pursue their own academic work. Those will be seen as rather eccentric.

Others are more "au fait" with the modern world and must have deliberately cultivated rather schizophrenic attitudes, I think. If they are well grounded, then they know perfectly well that Philosophical Analysis is an academic discipline like any other, and keep it in its place. Some scientists must have the same sort of dual attitude and approach to life, I think.

When I lived in Oxford in the early 1970's, the philosopher A. J. Ayer used to sit every morning in a teashop, willing to talk Philosophy with anyone who liked to! I'm pretty sure he lived in, and certainly lectured at, the University. I never had the nerve to approach the great man, but knew Philosophy students who did. Now he seemed pretty well-balanced!

But Laura, I don't think everybody is as well grounded and sensible as you are :)

What a long post I did - sorry! But having come back from walking the dog and musing, I realise that the two theories I put forward for how Philosophers exist in the real world were both Psychological theories! So I'll have a go at a Philosophical one...

Maybe someone like Bertrand Russell would think in terms of sense-data. So, continuing with the example of potatoes, if he felt hungry, he would know from his previous sense-data that eating potatoes would solve the problem. It has a consistent effect, and there is no rational reason to suppose that it would not have the same effect this time. He does not reject any sense-data which conform to a pattern.

Perhaps a French philosopher would think it was all appearances,so would sit in a corner and not eat the potatoes. And an Idealist would eat the potatoes quite happily because God had provided the idea of them.

Do you think this is a correct representation, anyone?

Pink - I think maybe you might be interested in Schrodinger's cat

Jenny - Perhaps you'd better not let Schrodinger's cat hear your brain cells squeak...! ;)

I've just finished chapter 12 about what is meant truth and falsehood. I've found it the most interesting part of the book so far. And at the start of chapter 13, Russell says that that is of much less interest than the question he addresses in this chapter. We shall see!

Hopefully I'll get there for the third week in February, Gill. I'm sticking to the plan :)