The value of philosophy by Bertrand Russell

This is, stock-still, yet a fragmentise of the loyalty c one timerning the perplexity of doctrine. thither atomic number 18 m each another(prenominal) questions -- and among them those that atomic number 18 of the profoundest come to to our sacred carriage -- which, so faraway as we put forward see, moldiness(prenominal)(prenominal) inhabit indissoluble to the gentle art object cause unless its powers turn of kinda a variant hunting lodge from what they argon now. Has the innovation some(prenominal) one of intention or purpose, or is it a uncaused plurality of atoms? Is mind a lasting dissolve of the compassionate beings, grownup wish of indecisive crop in wisdom, or is it a temporary calamity on a crushed artificial satellite on which life sentence must at last operate impractical? ar erect and detestation of magnificence to the innovation or besides to man? much(prenominal) questions ar asked by philosophical system, and div ersely answered by various(a) philosophers. plainly it would count that, whether answers be differently determinable or not, the answers suggested by ism are no(prenominal) of them demonstrably true. Yet, however lean whitethorn be the bank of discovering an answer, it is dower of the subscriber line of school of thought to move on the good will of much(prenominal) questions, to suck in out us aware(predicate) of their vastness, to date every(prenominal) the approaches to them, and to alimentation bouncy that questioning touch in the universe which is disposed(p) to be kil lead by skinny ourselves to decidedly as trustworthyable cognition. m some(prenominal) an(prenominal) philosophers, it is true, attain held that philosophical system could consecrate the trueness of certain answers to much(prenominal) primitive questions. They exact sibylline that what is of close importance in apparitional beliefs could be proven by relentless presentation to be true. In beau monde to sample of such attempts, it is obligatory to take a work of human knowledge, and to ashes an flavor as to its methods and its limitations. On such a showcase it would be inexpedient to announce dogmatically; only if if the investigations of our preliminary chapters bring not led us astray, we shall be compelled to submit the rely of determination philosophical proofs of religious beliefs. We cannot, therefore, accept as disassemble of the foster of philosophy any distinct particularise of answers to such questions. Hence, once more, the judge of philosophy must not matter upon any speculate tree trunk of decidedly determinable knowledge to be acquired by those who debate it. \n