Bertrand Russell - The Problems of Philosophy (Chapter 1)

Deceit

Russell discusses the differences in textures with or without the use of a microscope.

But also how we see with the naked eye through the microscope, therefore this means how can we actually even trust what we have perceived through our 'deceitful' or naked eyes eyes because everything the naked eye could see can be a mere deception of what we want to see and not how it really is.

Equivocated Information

Perception

Therefore one texture cannot be compared to another texture.

The shape of the table changes usually as you walk around it because it looks different in each perspective.

For if several people looked at the same table all at once none of them would see the same table the same way as the other person would see the table.

Sensations

The sensation of pressure depends on the amount of force we exert on it, equally does the sound produced vary depending on how hard we tap on the wood of the table’s top.

Therefore the sensations of touch, sound and sight aren’t fixed in reality, they all depend on the conditions of observation.

Appearance and Reality

Russell presents a distinction between ‘appearance’ and ‘reality’

"between what things seem to be and what they are."

• which to an Artist would be what they prefer to see how "things seem to be"
• where as the Normal person prefers "what they are" trying to be.

Russell proposes that differences doesn't affect our perspective due to our past experience and we learn ‘to construct real shape from the apparent shape’

• Just like colors the shape exist because we can deduce it from our senses.

Russell's words can be a little confusing, it's easier if we break it down for you:

Consider The Table as a patch of brown which produces the sensation or experience of browness.

Since we have seen that certain features of the table's is not from our senses, Russell asks how we can know that a real table actually even exists.

It remains clear that we have an experience of awareness where we know colors and other properties as part of the table.

While we may doubt the existence of a real table, it is harder to doubt our awareness of our own sensations which we ourselves are only aware of.

Therefore, we consider our confidence in our own 'sense-data' from everyday experiences as safe or secure way of knowing that its 'real' at all.

Sense - data and Sensations

"the real table, if there is one, is not immediately known to us at all, but must be an inference from what is immediately known."

The Reality of the table purely depends on our deduction of knowledge on reality.

This is what Russell calls “sense-data”.

Sense-data is - “the things that are immediately known to us in sensation”.

Changes in our sensations show that sensation does not directly reveal the reality of an object such as the table. Instead, it could be our sensations which are "signs of some property which perhaps causes all the sensations."

This is a sign

of the property

The Exsistance of the Real Table

Russell questions how we know the real table exists at all also what certainty we actually can have regarding the tables existence.

Whereas we do know that we have experience towards knowing that the tables actually exists through the colors and other propertes which correalate with our senses to prove that the table exists.

So harder to doubt the existence of a real table. But also harder to doubt awareness of our own sensations because our confidence in “Sense-data” about everyday experiences as “safe” enough to know we are truely seeing a table.

"is there a real table at all" and "if so, what sort of object can it be?"

He presents the ‘real table’ is meant to be a “physical object” which we philosophically say is meant to be “matter”.

However this translates Russells question now into

"is there any such thing as matter" and "if so, what is its nature?"

I'm every Philosphers favorite object

Russell's Obession with Idealism

Russell presents the philosophist Bishop Berkeley (1685-1753) who thought immediate objects (Physical objects) do not actually exist independently of us rather within our minds. His view that matter doesn’t exist and physical objects are just ideas, mental projections towards the world.

"if there are any things that exist independently of us they cannot be the immediate objects of our sensations."

Whereas Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) thought through physical objects existed because they were being observed by more than ones ‘mind’ and this entity did not essentially mean God Itself but more than one collective amount of minds.

Matter

Matter is a common idea that matter is something opposed in the mind, takes space in the physical world and doesn’t have its own consciousness.

Berkeley denies matter itself but in the sense apart from our minds, matter is independent because something persists when we ‘close our eyes’ or ‘ leave a room’ and considers reality of physical objects as ideas in the mind of God.

Therefore meaning anything can exist independently as long as they’re not unknowable.

"Is there a real table at all?" Russell uses what Berkeley and Leibniz had thought to present that there is a real table. But disagrees on idealism and its views on the nature of a real table. For all philosophers agree there's a real table because our

“Sense-data” are signals/signs of existence independent of us.

Russell says we gather our sense directly from ‘appearance’ but they're signs we deduce from ‘reality’ .

This is an Idea

Apperance

Conclusions

“Philosophy, if it cannot answer so many questions as we could wish, has at least the power of asking questions which increase the interest of the world.”

Russell identifies our interest for knowledge about the world we exist in and our inquisitive behaviour makes us gain knowledge which is based on our reality.

However this does mean even the strangest theories can always be true because they’re merely cloaked beneath the thing we experience in our common daily lives.

The mistake doesn't necessarily meant the issue of perspective as the major problem, because the table still might be one color, just affected by a force of nature (the sun) which wasn't taken into account and if it were, then the table's color would be constant, and still independent of the observer.

Philosophical Question Time

The Steaks Have never been higher

also The End of Chapter I