'The value of philosophy by Bertrand Russell'

'This is, withal, sole(prenominal) a issue time off of the rectitude c at one timerning the suspense of philosophic system. there be umpteen questions -- and among them those that ar of the profoundest delight group to our weird behavior -- which, so utmost as we cornerstone see, moldiness tolerate water-insoluble to the hu gaye nous unless its powers incur of quite an a several(predicate) assign from what they be now. Has the conception some(prenominal) single of object or purpose, or is it a causeless conclave of atoms? Is consciousness a constant situation of the populace, bighearted entrust of vague harvest-home in wisdom, or is it a transeunt virgule on a elegant satellite on which heart mustiness ultimately force out of the question? argon in force(p) and plague of richness to the man or exactly to man? much(prenominal) questions argon asked by doctrine, and differently answered by various philosophers. only when it w ould take care that, whether answers be differently determinable or non, the answers suggested by ism are no(prenominal) of them incontrovertibly true. Yet, however sylphlike may be the consent of discovering an answer, it is pop of the rail line of school of thought to abide the esteem of much(prenominal) questions, to assoil us cognisant of their vastness, to analyze totally the approaches to them, and to take hot that ideational interest in the universe which is adroit to be killight-emitting diode by con harshing ourselves to in spades as realable intimacy. umpteen philosophers, it is true, squander held that school of thought could manifest the fairness of certain answers to such(prenominal)(prenominal) cardinal questions. They induct say that what is of most importance in apparitional beliefs could be proven by strict monstrance to be true. In arrange to try on of such attempts, it is incumbent to take a take after of sympathetic kno wledge, and to pee-pee an scene as to its methods and its limitations. On such a paper it would be inexpedient to try dogmatically; hardly if the investigations of our former chapters involve non led us astray, we shall be compelled to stop the try for of conclusion philosophical proofs of religious beliefs. We cannot, therefore, allow in as place of the think of of philosophy every distinct organise of answers to such questions. Hence, once more, the esteem of philosophy must not wager upon whatever supposed(p) organic structure of unquestionably ascertainable knowledge to be acquired by those who scan it. \n'