All About Books discussion
This topic is about
The Problems of Philosophy
Non-Fiction
>
Group Read (February/March) - The Problems of Philosophy, by Bertrand Russell
date
newest »
newest »
Jean wrote: "Hopefully I'll get there for the third week in February, Gill. I'm sticking to the plan :)"I'm not sticking to anything in particular!
This is most unfair, but it's how Russell sometimes makes me feel with this book (Gill, I think you in particular may appreciate this):
Anastasia wrote: "Oh, Jean, pardon! I wanted to say "Russell", but then I thought about "Bertold Brecht" instead of "Bertrand Russell" and I've said "Brecht" in a lapsus. :P I don't know how much Kant pertains to ..."
Anastasia, thank you for your small Kant excursus, it really makes me look forward to finally making it to the more modern philosophers, since so far I've been reading my way from the ancient philosophers into and out of the middle ages, so I am now somewhere around 17th century philosophy with Descartes knocking at my door, with whom I will start once we've finished the philosophy-nonfiction group reads of Feb/March.
Jean, I hate Schrodinger's cat! I've always disliked these sort of things, perhaps because I'm so practically minded that I can't get my head around these sorts of concepts, nor do I want to! I haven't reviewed this book yet, but I finished it yesterday and really didn't like it much at all. I didn't feel that I got much of a glimpse of other philosopher's views and I found the language and wording that Russell used very annoying.
Jenny wrote: "Anastasia wrote: "Oh, Jean, pardon! I wanted to say "Russell", but then I thought about "Bertold Brecht" instead of "Bertrand Russell" and I've said "Brecht" in a lapsus. :P I don't know how much..."
You're about to start reading modern philophers? Ah, a passionate suggestion: don't forget Montaigne! I'm reading right now his Essays after studying him the last year: in my opinion he's one of the most human philosophers, he's so rich (metaphorically). :)
If you love the humilty of Socrate, you'll love Montaigne too. :-D
Sorry, Pink! In fact I apologise to everybody for suggesting this book, as it is so frustrating! I too am feeling that it is far from the straightforward "primer" that Russell thought it was. He seems to delight in presenting his own viewpoint at every turn, and although he say he will define the terms precisely, you then find he is using them in a different sense a couple of sentences later!
I'm wondering if it would be better to read around each area (ie the concept in each chapter) and then come back to this book for Russell's views on it! Perhaps you (I) need more knowledge of commonly discussed Philosophical areas before you can properly appreciate it.
Apparently in universities they spend a whole term on this book, alongside other Philosophical texts. For this reason, I didn't want to "skim through" and read it straight off like other books. But I'm not sure I can stand to make a lot more notes and analyse it quite as closely as I have been doing. It does date from 1912, after all, and maybe even Russell himself changed his views later...
I actually like the concept of Schrodinger's cat. Quantum mechanics is a world I find myself wandering in very often. The difference between that sort of physics and this type of philosophy is that the quantum world can be expressed in mathematics. If you understand the fundamental concepts along with the mathematics (the basic stuff), the idea settles in your mind, and you'd see how fun the quantum world (and bizzar!) really is! It becomes addictive!
Anastasia wrote: "Jenny wrote: "Anastasia wrote: "Oh, Jean, pardon! I wanted to say "Russell", but then I thought about "Bertold Brecht" instead of "Bertrand Russell" and I've said "Brecht" in a lapsus. :P I don't..."
Thank you for he passionate suggestion! :) It went straight on my TBR!
@Jean, no need to apologize at all!!
Anastasia - I forgot to thank you for those interesting observations about Kant's theories :)It's a shame your library doesn't have this book (if you wanted to read it) but maybe you could get it on an e-reader (I have it on Kindle) or read it online? I think Leslie said it was on the Gutenberg project.
You can also find it here on goodreads. Right under the book cover and above the "want to read" thingy, you'll find a block that says "read book".
Pink wrote: "Jean, I hate Schrodinger's cat! I've always disliked these sort of things, perhaps because I'm so practically minded that I can't get my head around these sorts of concepts, nor do I want to! I h..."Pink, I find it reassuring that you found Russell's style annoying. I found the book immensely wordy, for something that is so short. I felt I was being told what I should think and not think, with no clear explanations as to why. I like the photo and comment, Jean. Exactly!
Anastasia wrote: "Jenny wrote: "Anastasia wrote: "Oh, Jean, pardon! I wanted to say "Russell", but then I thought about "Bertold Brecht" instead of "Bertrand Russell" and I've said "Brecht" in a lapsus. :P I don't..."
Now, if you are interested in Montaigne, How to Live: Or A Life of Montaigne in One Question and Twenty Attempts at an Answer is a nice read.
Mod
I thought the same ...
The Plan says chapter 10 today, so I may just make it (the trouble was, I had to read the previous chapter 3 times - plus repeats of odd bits...)Jenny - are you reading it in German? Because part of what I'm finding tricky is Russell's, or rather Philosophy's - re-attribution of everyday terms to have a specific Philosophical meaning. And words such as "innate" which have a meaning in Psychology, have an entirely different meaning in Philosophy.
I think this search for clarity is a big part of why Russell's writing in this volume seems so convoluted and wordy. He puts a lot of effort into explaining the nice and extremely subtle distinctions - and then forgets that he has never used a term (such as "synthetic") in its Philosophical sense before, so has to backtrack!
I'm wondering if his explanation of Leibniz - and now Kant - is any more accessible in German. Or whether you too are finding that when you as a reader) "translate" what you are reading into everyday words (such as "object" instead of Russell's beloved "so-and-so") you are stymied by them having a particular (there's another one, probably! Does "particular" have a Philosophical meaning?!) or if nor particular then especially precise meaning in Philosophy?
(Sorry - the length of that previous sentence is worthy of Russell himself! But at least I do not say "Let us now consider....") ;)
Another example - I felt I knew what the words "empiricist" and "rationalist" meant, but their Philosophical definitions are very different from their everyday meanings - and different again from their use in Psychology!
Jean, I am reading in English, which doesn't make it easier. Philosophy indeed has a whole vocabulary of it's own, or to correct myself: not really of it's own, many words are shared, unfortunately though the meaning isn't necessarily. There are big dictionaries for philosophical terminology, so yes, this really is something to not only get used to, but to almost study alongside reading and while writing this I am taking a guilty glimpse at my small philosophy shelf-section, with a big book standing there sadly neglected ;) I realize that the chapters I can follow best are the ones that my brain already has a file on so to speak, like the 'universals' for example.
That to me was an interesting chapter, the question whether and how much 'relation' for example is a construction of the mind.
I thought long and hard about one of the major complaints about the book, which is how 'sketchy' and therefore potentially tainting it deals with other philosophers theories. However Russell is a philosopher, what he's introducing is his theory and the tradition of doing so by 'arguing' with other philosophers without devoting a whole chapter on truthfully portraiting their theories is extremely common in philosophical writing. You make your point using the friction other schools of thought provide.
The thing is though, while it might be naive of me/us to expect him to not advocate his point of view, he has a real knack for being extremely misleading. The titles he picks (like 'A History of Western Philosophy' which was a huge source of frustration for me a few years ago) lead to the illusion of an attempt for a non-partial (non-biased?) text on the subject. It is not. The problem is I think: only few of us were actually interested in Russells philosophy, most of us I think were interested in an introduction of sorts encompassing several schools of thought. For the latter I find that picking a philosopher with an own school of thought is a tricky one. It's like asking Sartre to explain Leibniz objectively, furthermore, I am not sure how interested Sartre would have been in that task.
I think it's interesting that I am the least bothered by his language so far, especially since I was already so biased against Russell before. Maybe not understanding all the subtleties of a language helps ;)
I still enjoy chewing on the thought-bones the book throws, trying to figure out where I'd stand in all this, though I realize before knowing, I'd have to study the subject a whole lot more. A WHOOOOOLE lot more.
Thank Jenny, yes I think we probably being a bit naive in expecting Bertrand Russell to be unbiased. But I too think that as you say only few of us were actually interested in Russell's philosophy, most of us I think were interested in an introduction of sorts encompassing several schools of thought. That's certainly what I expected from this book - and it is actually how it is presented to the reader.I used to have a Dictionary of Philosophy. In fact two, I think. Don't seem to have them any more - maybe the print was impossibly small.
Nevertheless, one has to start somewhere. I think the problem is that with many subjects one can pick up the basics, and learn a certain amount, but Philosophy just doesn't seem to be like that. Nobody said Philosophy was easy!!
You're absolutely right we have to study it a whole lot more. And probably read other Philosophical works in tandem with this one - despite its claim to be a general introduction. It certainly is easier if you already have some knowledge about a Philosophical topic or area - as you said, a "mental file" on it :)
I am continuing to plough on :)
I remember we considered Russel an introduction to philosophy. Wonder how we'll fare against Plato?
I have my head in the sand as far as that goes, Charbel :DAnastasia - I have been reading the part about Kant's theories you refer to - as being a reversal in the Philosophical orthodoxy. A relationship had previously been thought to pertain between the object analysed, and the subject that analyses it. To quote what you paraphrased Kant's theories to be:
the "true" must be found in the external world, and that the subject (our mind) is subdued to the object (the reality). Kant claimed that the relationship is totally opposite, the subject dominates the object. And it's not the subject that must adapts himself to the reality, but the reality must adapts itself to the subject.
Are you going to read this book? I think you would enjoy it as an overview of the theories you have already become acquainted with :)
Jean wrote: "It isn't! Hope it is deleted by the mods. (And this one too when it's sorted out!) Discussion on the general chat thread Charbel."Thanks Jean. I just saw. It's a wonder how much you can miss in this group in just a few hours!
Charbel wrote: "I remember we considered Russel an introduction to philosophy. Wonder how we'll fare against Plato?"Well I read two works by Plato at the end of last year and found it very easy to understand and I loved it. Whereas I hated this!
Yes I have a feeling that the only person of understanding this book was Russel himself. Of course that feeling probably stems from my own personal frustration with it.
Charbel wrote: "Yes I have a feeling that the only person of understanding this book was Russel himself. Of course that feeling probably stems from my own personal frustration with it."I totally agree with your frustrations!
I am starting to think that Plato is going to be the easier bit by now. It is written as a dialog, so it reads a tiny bit like fiction and the bits I listened to (the link for the iTunes audio is in the respective thread) is quite enjoyable. I am really looking forward to it actually.
Meanwhile "universals" tomorrow :)
hooray!!! *cough* ;)
Jean I think it's just you and me now, how are you doing with the last chapters? I have to admit though I've been rather patient with Russells approach and language so far, it is starting to wear thin.
I'm up to "On Intuitive Knowledge" and have actually enjoyed the 3 chapters on universals a lot better! I have also rediscovered The Oxford Companion to Philosophy hiding at the back of the sideboard :)Having said (in comment 59) I might not analyse the rest of it so closely, I'm finding I'm making more notes than ever! And slowing down too. So I'll be going over the time frame I'm afraid in order to do it justice.
I have a feeling that if I had the ability (the in-depth knowledge) to write an introduction to Analytical Philosophy, it would be a much simpler book. He tries to cover far too much ground here, and goes into each area in too much depth as well. What he needed to do was to introduce the methods, and also define the the different areas of Philosophy and tell us just a bit about the main Movements.
You know, I think he's just way too interested in his subject! He's a Philosopher, and I think this would have been better written by a teacher. Sacrilege!! LOL
But how are you getting on, Jenny? I think there were other group members who intended to read this. I remember quite a few people voting for it who haven't commented at all. Maybe we have put them off ;) Oh dear!
Sorry Jean for the late reply. I've finished a few hours ago, will collect my thougths and come back here tomorrow. However when checkin where you are at in the book I realized that you used my favourite quote from this book when updating its status, I actually snorted hard when coming across it: "Going back through the day, I find things of which I am quite certain, other things of which I am almost certain, and some things of which I am by no means certain. I am quite certain that I ate my breakfast this morning, but if I were as indifferent to my breakfast as a philosopher should be, I should be doubtful."
LOL - yes a badly-needed joke, I felt :D(Actually I had to miss out a couple of clauses in the middle to make it fit.)
Well so that's what I get from being too lazy too look it up myself again and using copy and paste!!! Well, the punchline is there and I believe Russell himself is no stranger to the procedure of 'clipping' quotes. ;)
It seems a bit naughty but it's Goodreads' fault for limiting the space to just a few characters! And it wasn't as if I'd altered the sense of the sentence - just missed out a couple of his extra definitions on different levels of "being certain". He is nothing if not completist.Interesting that Russell clipped quotes a lot. One could make them appear to say exactly what one wanted to...
And I have realised that anyone who is particularly pernickety and pedantic from an early age may well make a good philosopher.
LOL. Lot's of philosophers shooting thougth-darts your direction at the moment. You'll get a good laugh out of comparing your definition of what makes a good philosopher to Russells in the last chapter, which I actually quite enjoyed if only he could have let go of the preachy tone. I couldn't find a translation for pernicky though..help!I realized that part of the problem with this book for me (apart from Russells tone) is that it too much and too little all at once. He touches on too much while at the same time whenever he touches something outside of his own cosmos of thought he just brushes over it, like with Hegel in the penultimate (!!!!!! ;)) chapter, something I would have liked to hear more about. Yet in his counterarguments he goes to great length and repetition, and though I think precision and detail are philosophical virtues the pedantic way (yes, I know) in which he feeds it to the reader (poor soul, not blessed with a matching intellect) is hard to stomache through the entire book, at least I felt myself grow exhausted from it.
I will wait till you've finished for more comments on the last chapters.
I agree Jenny; I think we are both having the same reactions although we've expressed it a little differently. The author himself is frustrated by his own book! He is having difficulty in restraining himself from going into each area in great detail. Yet he makes mistakes from the point of view of explaining to a beginner. One can't just "brush over" things as you said. You have to explain them - or not refer to them at all!
Ah - pernickety! When a translator emailed me a new book and asked me to comment on any typos, I asked him how pernickety he wanted me to be, (referring to a couple of words which appeared to run into each other; where the spacing could be better) and he said as pernickety as possible! LOL
So it's kind of very very precise - to the point of obsession! People who are OCD would be seen as pernickety.
I think of pernickety as similar to picky.
Yes, that would probably be used more often nowadays - a sort of slang expression. Just as a wizard's hat is usually referred to as a "pointy hat" for some reason, rather than a "pointed hat" as it always used to be.
I have finally finished this book and posted my review . At least I managed to finish before the end of February! ;)
I just want to say to fellow-readers of Russell, that, despite being written centuries earlier, I am findingDiscourse on Method & Meditations on First Philosophy, so much easier to read. Descartes seems such a modest man, also.
Thanks for the info, Gill :)
All About Books
Books mentioned in this topic
Discourse on Method & Meditations on First Philosophy (other topics)The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (other topics)
How to Live: Or A Life of Montaigne in One Question and Twenty Attempts at an Answer (other topics)
The Complete Essays (other topics)
Critique of Pure Reason (other topics)
More...
I don't know how much Kant pertains to this book, but I thought about him when you said that Russell has claimed that "the most subjective things are the most certain". In fact Kant has made a revolutionary reversal between the object analysed and the subject that analyzes it.
In the past research of knowledge, Galilei, also Descartes believed that the "true" must be found in the external world, and that the subject (our mind) is subdued to the object (the reality).
Kant claimed that the relationship is totally opposite, the subject dominates the object.
And it's not the subject that must adapts himself to the reality, but the reality must adapts itself to the subject. Kant compares his reversal to the one of Copernico. :)
And he uses also the metaphor of the glasses: he said that the subject behaves like somebody who put on a pair of coloured glasses to see the reality: everything will be conditional on the filter through he is seeing it. So, it's true for him that the subjective "things" are our personal truths, given that the "objective" things are a very restricted category of his thought (he calls them "a priori" categories, these one are related mostly on claims like "every body has an extension" and so on).