The Problems of Philosophy · Chapter
XIV: The Limits of Philosophical Knowledge explained
Russell argues that philosophy cannot provide a priori knowledge of the universe as a whole, contrary to the claims of metaphysicians like Hegel.
What happens
Russell argues that philosophy cannot provide a priori knowledge of the universe as a whole, contrary to the claims of metaphysicians like Hegel. He contends that philosophical knowledge is not fundamentally different from scientific knowledge, and that the essence of philosophy is criticism—examining the principles of science and daily life. He rejects absolute skepticism and Hegelian holism, advocating instead for a piecemeal, empirical approach to knowledge.
Themes in this chapter
The Value of Philosophy
Russell emphasizes that philosophy's value lies in criticism, not in providing grand metaphysical truths about the universe.
Knowledge and Certainty
The chapter examines the limits of philosophical knowledge, arguing that we cannot achieve certainty about the universe as a whole through a priori reasoning.
A Priori Knowledge
Russell discusses the role of a priori principles like induction in knowledge, but denies that a priori metaphysics can reveal the nature of reality.
Characters to notice
- Hegel
Russell discusses Hegel's philosophy as the representative of the view that metaphysics can prove the nature of the universe as a whole, and criticizes his arguments for being confused and unwarranted.
- Descartes
Russell references Descartes' methodical doubt as the kind of criticism that constitutes philosophy, distinguishing it from absolute skepticism.
Key passages
“The essential characteristic of philosophy, which makes it a study distinct from science, is criticism.”
Philosophy is unique because it critically examines the principles used in science and everyday life.
Russell defines philosophy's role as critical inquiry rather than speculative system-building.
“If we adopt the attitude of the complete sceptic, placing ourselves wholly outside all knowledge, and asking, from this outside position, to be compelled to return within the circle of knowledge, we are demanding what is impossible, and our scepticism can never be refuted.”
Absolute skepticism is impossible to refute because any argument must start from some shared knowledge.
Russell argues that complete skepticism is unreasonable and not the kind of criticism philosophy advocates.
“Thus we are left to the piecemeal investigation of the world, and are unable to know the characters of those parts of the universe that are remote from our experience.”
We must study the world bit by bit through experience, not through grand metaphysical systems.
Russell concludes that philosophy should adopt an empirical, scientific approach rather than seeking total knowledge.