Performance Task 1: The Value of Philosophy Chapter 15 of Bertrand Russell's Problems of Philosophy

Performance Task 1: The Value of Philosophy
Chapter 15 of Bertrand Russell’s Problems of Philosophy
We humans are very prone to suffer from a psychological predicament we might call “the
security blanket paradox.” We know the world is full of hazards, and like passengers after a
shipwreck, we tend to latch on to something for a sense of safety. We might cling to a
possession, another person, our cherished beliefs, or any combination of these. The American
pragmatist philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce speaks of doubt and uncertainty as uncomfortable
anxiety-producing states. This would help explain why we tend to cling, even desperately, to
beliefs we find comforting. This clinging strategy, however, leads us into a predicament that
becomes clear once we notice that having a security blanket just gives us one more thing to
worry about. In addition to worrying about our own safety, we now are anxious about our
security blanket getting lost or damaged. The asset becomes a liability. The clinging strategy for
dealing with uncertainty and fear becomes counterproductive.
While not calling it by this name, Russell describes the intellectual consequences of the security
blanket paradox vividly:
The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the
prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation,
and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the cooperation or
consent of his deliberate reason. . . The life of the instinctive man is shut up within the
circle of his private interests. . . In such a life there is something feverish and confined, in
comparison with which the philosophic life is calm and free. The private world of
instinctive interests is a small one, set in the midst of a great and powerful world which
must, sooner or later, lay our private world in ruins.
The primary value of philosophy according to Russell is that it loosens the grip of uncritically
held opinion and opens the mind to a liberating range of new possibilities to explore.
The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. . .
Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts
which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free
them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to
what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the
somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never traveled into the region of
liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an
unfamiliar aspect.
Here we are faced with a stark choice between the feeling of safety we might derive from
clinging to opinions we are accustomed to and the liberation that comes with loosening our grip
on these in order to explore new ideas. The paradox of the security blanket should make it clear
what choice we should consider rational. Russell, of course, compellingly affirms choosing the
liberty of free and open inquiry.
Must we remain forever uncertain about philosophical matters? Russell does hold that some
philosophical questions appear to be unanswerable (at least by us). But he doesn’t say this about
every philosophical issue. In fact, he gives credit to philosophical successes for the birth of
various branches of the sciences. Many of the philosophical questions we care most deeply
about, however - like whether our lives are significant, whether there is objective value that
transcends our subjective interests - sometimes seem to be unsolvable and so remain perennial
philosophical concerns. But we shouldn’t be too certain about this either. Russell is hardly the
final authority on what in philosophy is or isn’t resolvable. Keep in mind that Russell was
writing 100 years ago and a lot has happened in philosophy in the mean time (not in small part
thanks to Russell’s own definitive contributions). Problems that looked unsolvable to the best
experts a hundred years ago often look quite solvable by current experts. The sciences are no
different in this regard. The structure of DNA would not have been considered knowable fairly
recently. That there was such a structure to discover could not even have been conceivable prior
to Mendel and Darwin (and here we are only talking 150 years ago).
Further, it is often possible to make real progress in understanding issues even when they can’t
be definitively settled. We can often rule out many potential answers to philosophical questions
even when we can’t narrow things down to a single correct answer. And we can learn a great
deal about the implications of and challenges for the possible answers that remain.
Even where philosophy can’t settle an issue, it’s not quite correct to conclude that there is no
right answer. When we can’t settle an issue this usually just tells us something about our own
limitations. There may still be a specific right answer; we just can’t tell conclusively what it is.
It’s easy to appreciate this point with a non-philosophical issue. Perhaps we can’t know whether
or not there is intelligent life on other planets. But surely there is or there isn’t intelligent life on
other planets. Similarly, we may never establish that humans do or don’t have free will, but it
still seems that there must be some fact of the matter. It would be intellectually arrogant of us to
think that a question has no right answer just because we aren’t able to figure out what that
answer is.
Review and Discussion Questions

On this lecture note:
 Why should we doubt that science covers all of human inquiry?
 What are some metaphysical issues? Some epistemological and ethical issues?
 What problem does the view that morality is simply a matter of the say-so of some authority lead to?
On Russell’s “The Value of Philosophy”:

 What is the aim of philosophy according to Russell?
 How is philosophy connected to the sciences?
 What value is there in the uncertainty that philosophical inquiry often produces?
On the commentary on Russell:

 Explain the “security blanket” paradox.
 How can understanding of issues be advanced even when definitive knowledge can’t be had?
 What’s the difference between saying we can’t know the answer to some question and saying that
there is no truth of the matter?

Performance Task 1: The Value of Philosophy Chapter 15 of Bertrand Russell's Problems of Philosophy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance Task 1: The Value of Philosophy Chapter 15 of Bertrand Russell's Problems of Philosophy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance Task 1: The Value of Philosophy Chapter 15 of Bertrand Russell's Problems of Philosophy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance Task 1: The Value of Philosophy

Chapter 15 of Bertrand Russell’s Problems of Philosophy

Review and Discussion Questions

On Russell’s “The Value of Philosophy”:

On the commentary on Russell:

You might also like