Posted: June 6th, 2021

I found Russell’s writing in The Problems of Philosophy to be quite challenging at times. Some of the concepts he discusses, such as skepticism and the nature of perception, were difficult for me to fully grasp. However, I enjoyed how Russell breaks down complex philosophical problems into clear, logical steps. The chapter where he discusses solipsism and the argument against it was particularly fascinating to me. While I don’t feel I have a complete understanding of all his views, I appreciated Russell’s analytical approach to philosophical inquiry.
The statement of Russell’s that I understood best was his argument against skepticism in Assessment Brief Original Custom Research Essay Pro Papers Help – Chapter II. He acknowledges that we cannot be completely certain of our perceptions corresponding to an external reality. However, he argues that we must accept some basic assumptions in order to function and make progress in understanding the world. As Russell states, “The possibility of finding out whether given statements are true or false, and the possibility of learning from experience, depend upon the validity of inferences and the trustworthiness of our senses” (Russell 27). I found this a compelling response to radical skepticism.
In my reading of John Locke’s An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, I noticed some similarities as well as differences when compared to Russell’s views. Like Russell, Locke believes that knowledge comes from experience and perception rather than innate ideas. As Locke writes, “Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper void of all characters, without any ideas; how comes it to be furnished?…To this I answer, in one word, from experience” (Locke 104). Both philosophers thus view empiricism as central to epistemology.
However, Locke places more emphasis than Russell on the distinction between primary and secondary qualities of objects. For Locke, primary qualities like solidity exist independently of our perceptions, while secondary qualities like color are merely powers in objects to produce sensations in us. Russell, on the other hand, argues that we cannot be certain whether qualities exist objectively or are merely appearances (Russell 20). So they differ somewhat in their ontological commitments regarding the nature of qualities.
Another difference lies in their views on innate ideas. While Locke rejects the doctrine of innate ideas, Russell acknowledges that some basic logical and mathematical principles seem to be known a priori rather than derived from experience. As Russell states, “It remains true that all inferences depend upon assumptions which we cannot doubt without giving up all possibility of knowledge” (Russell 28). So Russell’s epistemology allows for more a priori knowledge than Locke’s strictly empiricist account.
In conclusion, my reading of Russell and Locke this week revealed both similarities and differences in their philosophical perspectives. Both emphasize experience and perception over innate ideas, and present compelling arguments against radical skepticism. However, they diverge to some extent on ontological issues regarding qualities of objects, and on the extent of a priori knowledge. Engaging with these classic philosophers has helped develop my own understanding of key problems in epistemology and metaph epistemology and metaph epistemology and metaphysics. I look forward to further exploring their ideas in future readings.

Order|Paper Discounts