Skip to main content

Bertrand Russell: Human Knowledge




Looking into and around the passage discussed with reader Henry in the comments section of this blog Dec. 20th. 


On the page preceding that quote, Russell had written:


"[W]e have to choose between two alternatives. Either we must accept skeptical solipsism in its most rigorous form, or we must admit that we know, independently of experience, some principle or principles by means of which it is possible to infer events from other events, at least with probability. If we adopt the first alternative we must reject far more than solipsism is ordinarily thought to reject; we cannot know of the existence of our own past or future, or have any ground for expectations as to our own future, if it occurs. If we adopt the second alternative, we must partially reject empiricism; we must admit that we have knowledge as to certain general features of the course of nature [that] cannot be logically inferred from experience."


Worth mulling over.


I submit that we can keep empiricism. Yes, we should acknowledge that we do trust in certain general features of the universe, such as the uniformity of nature (which makes induction possible), but this isn't a matter of a priori knowledge.  It is a matter of faith.


I understand that Russell doesn't want to put it that way....
Labels:

Comments

  1. HenryDecember 28, 2013 at 9:33 AM

    Christopher,

    The quotation you provided did not make clear why Russell believed that we must partially reject empiricism. But, in the paragraph after the one from which you quote, Russell makes himself clear. He writes that those who assert that empiricism is true cannot know that empirically and therefore contradict themselves.

    I would not say, however, that they accept the truth of empiricism as a matter of faith. Rather, they accept it pragmatically. They don't have to believe it to be true; they merely must act as if it is true. If they don't, their lives will likely be short. If they don't, for example, act as if induction demonstrates that gravity always operates except when one is in a space capsule, then they may decide to exit an upper story window instead of taking the stairs or elevator down. (Perhaps natural selection has eliminated those who do not accept empiricism!)

    Is there really a difference between accepting something on faith and accepting it pragmatically, as if it were true? I think so. I do not believe in God, but I assume that most people who do would not be happy to say that they merely act as if God exists.

    ReplyDelete
  2. ChristopherDecember 28, 2013 at 2:31 PM

    I knew you'd say all that. I wrote this post largely to give you the chance. You're welcome. ;-)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti
9 comments
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak
17 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers
Post a Comment
Read more