1. What does Russell mean by
"sense data" and why does he introduce this notion?
Sense-data is pretty much data about objects that we
get from our senses. I could, for example, feel that a table is hard or see
that the same table is red. “Red” and “hard” would here be my own sense-data
about the table. Other individuals can have different opinions about the table
and their sense-data may therefore differ from my own.
I think the term is presented in order for us to
understand in what way philosophers think and reason. If the above statement
about sense-data is true it would be possible for the table to only exist in my
mind. Is it really there and if I leave the room, will it cease to exist? So
even though you could doubt the existence of the table, you’re not supposed to doubt
your sense-data of it. But since the sense-data differ depending on light,
angle etc. how can we ever trust it to be true?
2. What is the meaning of the
terms "proposition" and "statement of fact"? How does
propositions and statement of facts differ from other kinds of verbal
expressions?
As discussed in the previous question, sense-data is
individual to each person. So in order to explain an object and its relation to
other things, we need to propose how that object is perceived. Russell uses the
word “proposition”, in order to explain objects and their relationship to other
objects. A statement of fact is then a proposition that a group of people agree
upon (but it doesn’t need to be true).
While a proposition depends on my own knowledge of
things, and a statement of fact is something more, I think a regular verbal
expression differ in the fact that it’s not based on knowledge in the same
sense. A statement of fact would also usually be up for debate and need to be
proven, something a regular verbal expression usually do not.
3. In chapter 5 ("Knowledge
by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description") Russell introduces the
notion "definite description". What does this notion mean?
Russell defines a definite
description of the type “so-and-so” and gives the example of “the man with the
iron mask”. It is a more concrete description of, in this case, a man, and it
makes the possibility of misunderstanding smaller (as long as you are
acquainted to all the universals explaining said man).
By further explaining an
object you increase the persons knowledge of the object you are describing.
Since all our knowledge is either by acquaintance or by description (according
to Russell) a more comprehensive explanation would lead to the person
understanding the object better either through a) being acquainted to the
object and therefor understanding the description or through b) a description of
said object.
4. In chapter 13 ("Knowledge,
Error and Probable Opinion") and in chapter 14 ("The Limits of
Philosophical Knowledge") Russell attacks traditional problems in
theory of knowledge (epistemology). What are the main points in Russell's
presentation?
In chapter 13 we move
forward from what truth- and falsehood is to how we can know something to be either true or false. Is it ever
possible to be certain if something is true? And what is knowledge? Russell
talks about “true belief” and the fact that it’s easy to mistake belief from
truths and that a true belief never can constitute knowledge.
He gives an example of a man
who thinks that that the Prime Minister’s last name starts with a ‘B’, which is
correct (Bannerman), but if it’s based on the fact that the man thinks the
Prime Minister’s name is Balfour, then the truth is based on a false premise.
The problem here lies in the fact that the person thinks he has knowledge of
the first letter of the Prime Minister’s name
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar