42 pages • 1 hour read
Bertrand RussellThe Problems of Philosophy
Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 1912A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Chapters 10-12Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Chapter 10 Summary: “On Our Knowledge of Universals”
In this chapter, Russell breaks down universals into how they are discovered: by acquaintance, description, or another method. Knowledge of universals by acquaintance includes concepts like colors, tastes, or textures. These are learned through the intake of sense data across platforms. Russell explains these concepts as sensible qualities. Universals can also be known through connection. Russell uses the example of a page of a book. A person recognizes the page by the connections between its various parts. A page is made of paper and contains both words and blank spaces. Many pieces of sense data work together to form a singular concept.
Humans can apply universals by connection across myriad contexts. It is used to understand time and space, as well as resemblance. Humans can also recognize both the similarity and difference between two shades of green, finding a universal quality between the two.
Russell returns to the equation 2+2=4 to establish how priori knowledge relates to universals. The equation is reliant upon several universals. Both “two” and “four” are examples of universals. The interaction and relationship between the universals form the meaning of the equation. Russell uses this to illustrate a foundational principle: “Priori knowledge deals exclusively with the relations of universals” (63). The relationship between universals directly correlates to the knowledge of truths. Humans use connections to uncover truths about the world around them. Knowledge of truths relies on intuitive judgment, making it susceptible to error.
Chapter 11 Summary: “On Intuitive Knowledge”
Many philosophers and scientists assert that all truths must be capable of proof. However, Russell argues that certain intuitive knowledge does not need to be proved because it exhibits self-evidence. When humans eat food, they do not instantly assume that they might be poisoned by it. However, if you ask them to explain their inductive reasoning repeatedly, they will reach a threshold when they can no longer justify their belief. Russell argues that this does not mean that their intuitive knowledge is ungrounded. Instead, they are relying on the self-evident meaning that requires no external proof.
Russell offers a few types of self-evident intuitive knowledge. The first is in the case of general principles, such as the law of contradiction. The second is truths of perception. These forms of intuitive knowledge can be further categorized into two parts: truths formed from the existence of sense data and truths formed from analyzing sense data. An example of the former is simply the assertion that there exists a patch of a specific color. Although a person may not be able to explain where the knowledge of red comes from, the individual can intuitively and directly identify the color. The latter utilizes the analysis of relations, such as describing two different things as being next to each other.
Memory is another type of intuitive knowledge. A man sitting in a chair has an intuitive understanding that he was sitting in the chair 30 seconds ago. Each type of intuitive knowledge has varying degrees of self-evidence. The greater the self-evidence, the more trustworthy the knowledge is. However, this does not mean that all self-evident propositions are true. Intuitive knowledge can be both self-evident and untrue.
Chapter 12 Summary: “Truth and Falsehood”
Many people hold beliefs that are in contradiction with one another. People may also hold both true and untrue beliefs at the same time. Rather than unpacking how a person can determine whether a belief is true or false, Russell first determines the difference between the two. For a theory to be true, philosophers argue that it must adhere to three requirements. First, a theory of truth must allow for the possibility of a proposition to be either true or false. Many philosophers fail in this principle by asserting that their theories are fundamentally true, leaving no room for falsehood. Second, truth and falsehood are both products of belief. Without belief, there would be only matter and no such thing as truth. Third, all truths and falsehoods rely on a belief that connects to something outside of itself.
Russell argues that the culmination of these three requirements is that truth must always be coherent, yet truth is not always consistent. Two philosophers may develop comprehensive theories that can account for all possibilities, but this does not mean that both opposing theories are true. While coherence is valuable for testing whether a theory is true, it can never provide a direct meaning of truth. The three elements to a theory of truth do not make room for falsifiability at every level. Truth is determined by its consistency and correspondence to objects or facts. Although it is related to belief, truth has an extrinsic property that exists outside of the mind.
Chapters 10-12 Analysis
Russell explains that all intuitive knowledge can be challenged, reducing beliefs to an irrational beginning. This does not mean, however, that intuitive knowledge should be dismissed. The Nature and Limits of Human Knowledge does not render all thought as false. Russell argues that intuitive knowledge still has value, even if it is separate from truth, because it helps humans make sense of the world around them. He explains that most people operate on the assumption that their food is not poisoned. While most examples in the text are mundane, such as tables, coins, or cats, this more dramatic example heightens the stakes of Russell’s philosophy as he relates an understanding of truth to life-or-death situations. At the same time, Russell’s tone here is mockingly comedic as he uses an unusually dramatic example to challenge any contradictions to his theories.
Russell uses the more simple example of a page to illustrate this idea. Most of the examples in the text are items that, it is implied, appear before Russell in his study, thus giving the philosophy an intimate tone as he constructs an implicit image of himself in a study pondering the objects that he sees. This is a meta example that comments on the materiality of the text itself. The page is the only view that Russell can be sure the reader shares. This example hence heightens the text’s intimacy by relating the philosophy directly to the reader’s immediate experience.
Related Titles
By Bertrand Russell
