Confidently lost
Reading Russell hasn't been too strenuous on my brain, but there have been a few things that made me wonder. In Chapters 9 and 10, his explanation of The World of Universals and On Our Knowledge of Universals left me dazed. I wasn't sure if I completely understood how we can determine something that isn't a piece of the world we can sense. There has to be some way to sense it in order to give some sort of explanation for it. His explanation on how we know these things that we can't sense in the first place only confused me more. I understand the point he makes, but it's the concept of his argument that puzzles me. If that makes sense.
In short, Russell is building off past philosophers concepts of knowledge coming from more than just experience. He proves knowledge can be a priori (intuitive, in a sense) by things like mathematics and statements of universality. He is saying you don't have to experience something like mathematics to comprehend it.
ReplyDelete