The Problems of Philosophy Paperback – May 22, 2020

As a beginner in the study of philosophy, this book gave me much more than a clear and concise introduction to the subject by one of its great masters. It gave me an inspiring, enlightening glimpse of how philosophy could boost my capacity to enjoy life and become a better person.As pointed out by a previous reviewer, the last chapter of the book, "The Value of Philosophy", is a beautiful reflection on the personal rewards that result from philosophical contemplation. This chapter articulates an insight that grows slowly inside the reader throughout the book, caused by the amazement of being exposed to great philosophical questions for the first time."...philosophy has a value (perhaps its chief value) through the greatness of the objects which it contemplates, and the freedom from narrow and personal aims resulting from this contemplation... The mind which has become accustomed to the freedom and impartiality of philosophic contemplation will preserve something of the same freedom and impartiality in the world of action and emotion... The impartiality which, in contemplation, is the unalloyed desire for truth, is the very same quality of mind which, in action, is justice, and in emotion is that universal love which can be given to all, and not only to those who are judged useful or admirable."If what sparked your curiosity about philosophy in the first place was the intuition that it would make you grow as a person in a very important sense, then this book is for you!

This book is to follow title as fiction more likely. The insight may be great as the story develop.

This short book is a journey through some of philosophy's more famous problems. Naturally a synopsis this short (it is roughly 100 pages) cannot do full justice to much of philosophy, or even to the problems it actually addresses, but it is an entertaining read that nevertheless will find itself illuminating to those unfamiliar with the subject.Uniquely, instead of following the historical chronology of the problems he chooses, Russell travels a path that seems to flow naturally from one subject to the next, as if each problem logically entailed the other. Consequently, Russell jumps decades (and even centuries), forward and backward as his narrative dictates. The experience is like a modern thriller movie whose out-of-sequence path nonetheless has a logic that makes sense. If you aren't already familiar with the subject you might not notice Russell's technique.Russell opens his inquiry by asking what justifies knowledge. Using Descartes' technique of systematic doubt, he explores the problem by examining illusions and fallacious conclusions that can arise when considering knowledge via sensory data to be perfectly reliable. Moving on to the existence of matter, Russell flexes some of his physics muscle with a cursory examination of the current state of thinking (writing as of 1912). The distinction between knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description leads to a discussion of induction and the distinction between empirical and a priori knowledge. This leads him to Kant and a long engagement with idealism follows. I won't spoil anymore.Of course Russell is himself a towering figure of 20th century analytic philosophy, and if you allow yourself a little cynicism, by the end it is clear his narrative merely engaged the line of philosophical puzzles that led to his own work. This is not meant as a character slight: this book's lightness bears little resemblance to his serious work and is aimed at a different audience. Rather, it is telling that the narrative he chooses is historically in line with his own work, so his omissions are less surprising when seen in this light. Given that Russell's original work centers on epistemology and logic, it makes sense the book starts at the Enlightenment, concentrating on epistemological questions, and never touches upon anything prior except for his brief foray into the problem of universals. For a book that calls itself the "The Problems of Philosophy," the omissions of major philosophical problems might raise your eyebrows if not for this fact.Russell is not an impartial narrator; he makes his opinions clear on a number of occasions, particularly with issues that have historical significance. I don't consider this a weakness; there is no shortage of general philosophy volumes that treat all ideas in a sympathetic light. It is also salutary to reflect Russell is not a philosophy historian in the normal sense (his huge History notwithstanding); he is an original contributor. Thus I would not expect a thinker of his stature to not proffer his views, as would be expected from any academic professor.My gripe with this book is the tediousness with which Russell begins the discussion. The early pages are somewhat monotonous and not entirely engaging. The rest of the work is quite engaging, so the book as a whole is let down by its beginning. This is unfortunate because many readers might not find themselves committed enough to finish it. Given the target audience (folks who may have no prior exposure to philosophy), missing out on the best parts because of its beginning would be unfortunate.

I enjoyed reading this book. Some sections are very insightful. The whole book is very well written (well, of course it is). Please keep in mind that I'm neither a philosopher nor a philosophy student. Though I really liked this book, and I was reading it very carefully, and at a slow pace, just to be able to digest it well.Just to give you a hint, this book mostly talks about what an object or a thing is, not quite precisely the problems of philosophy (maybe at that time?). As an example, Russell talks about the table in front of him. He interacts with it by sensing it (touching it, knocking on it, looking at it, describing its colors, etc). But can he really "know" that the table is "there"? Notice the quotes. This leads us to the question: What is knowledge itself? How do we "know" and what can we "know"? Can we really "know" what's "there" for certain? And so on. I'm not Bertrand Russell, so if you think this is boring, don't worry. The book is written in a much more interesting style (a meticulous and elegant style IMO). Though I noticed that Russell loves using little phrases in the middle of his thoughts/sentences that specify some meta-details (Example: "this work by Russell, which I secretly admire, has been, in many numerous occasions, considered to be, not directly so, by many philosophers of the highest caliber, many of which I had not the privilege of meeting, a milestone in metaphysics or whatever lol). It might be difficult to read for some people, but Russell's style is very clear most of the times.If you're genuinely interested in philosophy and want something concrete (to me, at least) and not just a history lesson, then definitely read this book.

The author explains the deeper meaning of philosophy. The good, the bad and why we need it. Does not make you a follower of someone else’s thinking but a thinker and realistic.

Tipo houve engano. Não comprei.

Great intro to the subject matter. Goes well with his history of Western philosophy.

I like Bertrand Russell and I didn't have this book. Very interesting point of views

Auch heute noch erfrischend zu lesen. Russel, selbst einer der bedeutendsten Philosophen, hat wenig Respekt vor großen Namen und kommentiert mutig, frech und klar ihr Denken. Wunderbar kompakt und ohne Dünkel geschrieben. Russel versucht nicht, durch verschwurbelte Formulierungen bedeutender zu erscheinen, sondern möchte verständlich erklären. Wem gerade der Kopf vom vielen 'Heideggern' raucht, dem empfehle ich dieses Buch, um das Hirn durchzublasen