e strongly towards truly knowing “why”. Russell believes that even if we did find the answer, would that be considered knowledge? He compares the journey of philosophy to that of mathematics and science. When a mathematician states a claim, he/she has to back it up with proof, and make it understandable for the general public to agree as well. Philosophy is far more vague. If anyone stated a claim about philosophy, for example, that everything is air, and that everything we see and touch is matter over mind, that we are brainwashed. Would people normally believe me and agree right away? Not likely. On the other, if someone was to say, “if a equals b, and b equals c, then a equals c.” This math is true, self- explanatory, and people learn this everyday. Therefore, it is an example of knowledge, justified true belief. Can there even be justified true belief in philosophy? If the answer is no, then I their value in philosophy? Russell wants the answer we are all looking for at one time or another. While Harre’s idea of philosophy is that it is a reflection of reflections, Russell thinks it is a reflection, but with a more pressing question attached to it. He does not claim to find the answers, nor does he believe that one definite answer exists. Simply, he feels that there is a greater good behind asking questions. Asking questions maintains the progress of the world, of the human condition, etc. In my opinion, philosophy is about progression of society. I feel that somewhere inside, everyone believes that there is a more important reason for this existence than to simply cooperate with society’s rules. Why do we get out of bed in the morning, and study, or work? This is like asking a question in science class: How much does an orange cost? Well at face value, it costs roughly $0.35. We believe this because we go to the supermarket, pick up the orange, and when we pay $0.35, we get an orange. But if we p...
