Probleme der Philosophie

by Bertrand Russell

Other authorsEberhard Bubser (Translator)

Paperback, 1988

Status

Available

Call number

CI 6604 P962

Genres

Collection

Wien

Publication

Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp

Description

Regarded as one of the most significant thinkers of the twentieth century, Bertrand Russell was a British philosopher who helped establish the discipline of analytic philosophy. In the enormously ambitious volume The Problems of Philosophy, Russell sets forth the chief issues and dilemmas that he considered to be most worthy of the time and effort of contemporary philosophers.

User reviews

LibraryThing member HadriantheBlind

A mis titled book - rather, Some Problems of Philosophy of the late 19th and early 20th century, Many of Which Have Been Addressed.

Discusses epistemology, absolutes, a priori and a posteriori knowledge, truth and falsehood. It does these very well. A quite reasonable introduction on basic problems.

But it's still very interesting, and Russell is one of the most readable of the philosophers. Dare I say it, his style actually flows well.

Show Less

11 more

LibraryThing member shelterit

An excelent snapshot of a change in epistomlogical direction almost 100 years ago. It's not an easy read for beginners (some background is needed, and the language somewhat archaic to the Nintendo generation) nor is it very general as an introduction nor too relevant for modern thinking; it's

history more than anything.

Show Less

LibraryThing member sharder

This was my first book on philosophy, I read just before I started studying the subject at university. I highly recommend it as the best introduction to "the general endeavor of philosophy as I see it".

LibraryThing member Stevil2001

Bertrand Russell sets out to explain why philosophy is important. He's probably right, but I didn't find it very interesting. Relatively accessible, but there are times where he states that we can take for granted something I wasn't so sure we could, but maybe that's because I know about

postmodernism. He also has a tendency to be a bit dismissive of positions as obviously mistaken just after he's told you someone presumably quite smart holds that position. There's quite a lot of discussions of tables. (The thing you put your dinner on, not the math kind.)

Show Less

LibraryThing member MarkBeronte

In Problems of Philosophy Russell attempts to create a brief and accessible guide to the problems of philosophy. He introduces important theories of Plato, Aristotle, René Descartes, David Hume, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, Georg Hegel and others to lay the foundation for philosophical inquiry. The

Theory of Knowledge occupies a larger space than metaphysics in the present volume, and some topics much discussed by philosophers are treated very briefly, if at all. Still this volume is a must read for anyone wishing a better understanding of philosophy.

Show Less

LibraryThing member phlll

I had some issues really getting into this book.

Maybe it's just that it was a dry writing style, or maybe it's that it doesn't seem to be a good starting point for someone who wants to learn about philosophy. But it took many weeks to get through what is actually a short book.

It does have some good

points, like at the end (at least in the Amazon free e-book) recommending other philosophers to read. And it tries to tie in analogies to history and to Othello (which I also haven't read.)

In college I took a logic class, and despised it. Too much emphasis on the fallacy of "I have a cat, it is grey, therefore all cats are grey" thing. You'll see that in here too, although in a cat-free setting.

Lots of people think this guy is almost Godlike, but it's hard for me to agree yet. In time, I'll probably read another Russell text, but not anytime soon.

Show Less

LibraryThing member Priory

This classic work, first published in 1912, has never been supplanted as an approachable introduction to the theory of philosophical enquiry. It gives Russell's views on such subjects as the distinction between appearance and reality, the existence and nature of matter, idealism, knowledge by

acquaintance and by description, induction, truth and falsehood, the distinction between knowledge, error and probable opinion, and the limits and value of philosophical knowledge.

Show Less

LibraryThing member AliceAnna

I no longer care to even try to understand this stuff. Asking questions that have no answer is not my idea of a good time. UNCLE!

LibraryThing member MarcusBastos

Russel confines himself in epistemology. He discuss the problem of knowledge and the conditions by with it can be achieved. The concept of truth is examined, with emphasis in the realist position. Truth as coerency is also mentioned. The author exposes his ideas about the meaning and purpose of

philosophy. Good work that deals with importants philosophical problems.

Show Less

LibraryThing member antao

Brilliant, but in the sense of clever. I never have a sense of depth when reading Russell. Life's deeper questions were actually not questions at all, so let us get on with our lives. No wonder that D. H. Lawrence and Wittgenstein accused Russell of living a life of merely superficiality. There was

an Edwardian air about Russell to the end of his long life, that if only the world listened to an enlightened gentleman like himself, all its problems would be solved. That the world's problems might be deeper than that (read any of the contemporary critiques of civilization - Left or Right, secular or religious - written during the same decades), seemed to have escaped him. I imagine Russell meeting the likes of Hobbes or Pascal or Machiavelli (those who saw through human vanity) and saying:

"Dear fellow, I think I find a flaw in your reasoning." I suppose an ugly truth about human nature would not count as a truth at all for Russell.

Wittgenstein thought highly of Kierkegaard, and Spengler suited his Austrian end-of-empire view after World War I. I do like Russell's view of Marxism: a religion with a chosen people, a holy book and a prophet, which likewise he could not believe.

Enough of Philosophy! Now I'll put my Soothsayer hat on. I'm going to make a prediction. There will be wars in the future. There will be corruption. There will be a market crash. There will be crimes of passion. There will be moments of selfless bravery. X Factor will always be rubbish. I am not a Supreme Being, but the predictions above are startlingly accurate. If we can agree that humans are predictable and will cause these events to happen then isn't this just a psychological exercise designed to seek out those who think they are mavericks? This is just a question of specifics-how predictable are humans? I've already predicted a bunch of stuff, it's the detail of where/when where I fall down. But I've still made predictions based on human nature and Simon Cowell. Is that so hard?

It reminds me of that joke:

"Would you sleep with me for £10 million?"
"Yes."
"Would you sleep with me for a fiver."
"Hell no, what kind of person do you think I am?!"
"I've already ascertained the kind of person that you are, now I'm just trying to determine the degree."

Boomboom

Show Less

LibraryThing member reenum

It took me a few months to finish, but the book gets easier as you read on. Russell does a great job building the foundation to be able to fully support his conclusion in the final chapter.

We should all be reading books like this to stave off the dumbening of society.

LibraryThing member steve02476

Quick run-through about knowledge - what we can and can't know, etc. A little too obvious in some ways, obscure in other ways.

Fewer