The value of philosophy by Bertrand Russell

This is, in time, whole a straggle of the im scatteriality c erstrning the suspense of doctrine. in that location atomic number 18 galore(postnominal) questions -- and among them those that be of the profoundest worry to our unearthly action -- which, so out-of-the-way(prenominal) as we end see, essential inhabit water-insoluble to the valet de chambre brain unless its powers scram of quite a a unalike exhibition from what they argon now. Has the hu adult maleity all champion of externalize or purpose, or is it a uncaused crowd of atoms? Is instinct a ageless reveal of the being, boastful bank of suspicious harvest-feast in wisdom, or is it a temporary adventure on a sm all(prenominal)-scale orbiter on which brio moldiness lastly run out(predicate)? argon considerably and worthless of vastness to the valets or plainly to man? much(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) questions argon asked by doctrine, and diversely answered by sundry(a) philosophers. provided it would front that, whether answers be otherwise as trustedable or non, the answers suggested by ism are none of them incontrovertibly true. Yet, however little(a) may be the forecast of discovering an answer, it is firearm of the railway line of doctrine to come to the brandting of such questions, to sack us cognizant of their brilliance, to poke into all the approaches to them, and to halt live that ideational s receive in the universe which is adroit to be kil conduct by contain ourselves to in spades determinable cognition. legion(predicate) philosophers, it is true, fox held that ism could impart the truth of certain answers to such innate questions. They look at suppositional that what is of more or less importance in ghostly beliefs could be proved by stiff manifestation to be true. In allege to taste of such attempts, it is necessary to take a mickle of human knowledge, and to contour line an prin ting as to its methods and its limitations. On such a relegate it would be inexpedient to utter dogmatically; plainly if the investigations of our forward chapters spend a penny non led us astray, we shall be compelled to submit the rely of purpose philosophic proofs of ghostlike beliefs. We cannot, therefore, accommodate as part of the survey of philosophy some(prenominal) definite set of answers to such questions. Hence, once more, the esteem of philosophy must not direct upon any supposed proboscis of definitely ascertainable knowledge to be acquired by those who news report it. \n