Subjects:
One of the foremost arguments against philosophy is that it provides no definite answers. Opponents state it can give hypothetical answers, but none that can be proven. This is from a scientific point of view. The first reply to this argument is that it has answered questions. As pointed out by Russell (155), William James in Some Problems of Philosophy (10), and in lecture (Eves, 10/03), all the branches of sciences share their roots in philosophy. As man pondered throughout time and arrived at proven explanations, a new science would develop. For example it used to be the accepted belief that the world was flat. Next someone observes and questions if that assumption is really true. Eventually we have the Copernicus theorizing that the sun is the center and not the ea
. . .
There are many other indirect values besides the previous ones in regard to a trained philosophic mind. This I believe is important so humans realize that they are not all-knowing as some might like to think. If this was to happen, following past events, assuming that the future will resemble the past, a new science will be born again branching from philosophy. If we were not to even flinch at these things being done as a society, we would become uncivilized. As Russell states, “keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect" (157). There is value, both direct and indirect, in philosophy and that is why it should be a mandatory class for students to take. As Russell explains knowledge we gain from philosophic contemplation increases the world around us (158). As the authors discuss different hypotheses of why we do what do, I can now see they are clearly illustrated as an argument with its conclusions. Today we have the science of astronomy. Another science that branched off from philosophy is psychology.
Essay's Topics
All research is for reference purposes only.