For one of my classes we read Bertrand Russell’s The Value of Philosophy. In this work he considers a number of benefits that come from the study of philosophy. The one he especially emphasizes is that it teaches us what we do not know and expands our understanding of the “non-self.” This is the end of philosophy and its main contribution according to Russell.
Now, a person might think this is simply Russell borrowing from Socrates. After all, Socrates came to a realization that what sets him apart from others is that he knows that he does not know whereas they think they know when they do not. In this he is contrasted with the fool who thinks they know when they do not know. And he is contrasted with the simple who does not care to know at all. Socrates distinguished between opinions and knowledge. These are different in that opinions might be false whereas if we have knowledge it is not false. Knowledge is a true belief for which we can give an account.
This is the starting point for Socratic questioning and dialogue. But is it the final goal of philosophy? I’ve heard people affirm that they have come to this same Socratic insight and are happy to stay there. However, in the example of Socrates what we see is that this is the starting point. It is not the end. It is not the final goal. He wants to continue on to actually know what is good, what is real, what is just.
So Russell’s view is that philosophy teaches us to argue well in our day but will not provide us with knowledge. The Socratic view is that while we need to realize the difference between knowledge and opinion, and that while all we may have are opinions which are false, nevertheless our goal is to have knowledge.
The value of philosophy is that it takes us out of pre-skepticism (we think we know but do not know) through skepticism (we affirm we do not know) to post-skepticism (we can know basic things).
Leave a Reply