Bertrand Russell states three questions that have a fundamental base hold on philosophy and are important to keep investigating answers for. The questions, “Has the universe any unity of plan or purpose, or is it a fortuitous concourse of atoms?”
“Is consciousness a permanent part of the universe, giving hope of indefinite growth in wisdom, or is it a transitory accident on a small planet on which life must ultimately become impossible?”
“Are good and evil of importance to the universe or only to man?”
Russell states that whether these answers be discoverable or not they won’t be demonstrably true. However, if there is any slight hope of discovering these answers it is part of the business of philosophy to continue the consideration of such questions and make us aware of their importance, to examine all the approaches to them and to keep alive that speculative interest in the universe which is apt to be killed by confining ourselves to definitely ascertainable knowledge. Knowledge is something acquired through life and in doing so you are creating an “enlarged self”. This acquisition of knowledge is best obtained when indirectly sought and the desire for knowledge is alone operative. When asking the question of whether the universe has a purpose, one would see that this is a complex question involving multiple buried questions within it. For one to hope of answering such a question of that magnitude the answering of the questions set within is crucial. Through each step the enlarged self gains more knowledge to build a basis on and expands on or dismiss previous notions based there on. The uncertainty of philosophy is derived from the nature of such questions that it undertakes in answering. In the process of undertaking such questions a philosopher liberates themselves from “the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the cooperation of consent of his deliberate reason.” Philosophy’s value comes from its nature of uncertainty according to Russell and allows a new perspective that diminishes our false sense of certainty about the world suggesting multiple possibilities “Which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of our custom”
Charles Sander Peirce had more of a scientific approach to philosophy he believed that a concept had meaning only if it had practical or experiential effect on the conduct of our daily lives which contrasts with Russell’s view in that the outcome has less value than the act of inquiry itself since as soon as we begin to philosophize we find that most everyday things lead to problems which only very incomplete answers can be given exposing the shortcomings and the reach of the scientific method. Russell emphasized more of a difference with philosophy and the sciences stating that the amount of definite body of truths within any particular field of science is great whereas in strict philosophy the study has not achieved in as much such positive amounts of truth though partly accounted for by the fact that as soon as definite knowledge concerning a subject is ascertainable then that subject ceases to be called philosophy and is re-categorized into a separate field. Peirce moreover, also contemplated metaphysics in what some may say contrasts to his other work. Some of the most ambitious attempts of metaphysicians have proceeded by the attempt to prove that such and such apparent features of the actual world are self-contradictory, and therefore could not be real. The entire tendency of modern thought, however, is more and more in the direction of showing that the supposed contradictions were illusory, and that only a small amount can be proved a priori from considerations of what must be. A good example of this is given by space and time. Space and time appears to be infinite in extent, and infinitely divisible. If we travel along a straight line in whichever direction, it is difficult to believe that we shall finally reach an end point, beyond which there is nothing beyond, not even empty void. Similarly, if in imagination we travel forwards or backwards in time, it is difficult to contemplate that we shall reach a first or last point in time, with not even “empty time” beyond it. Therefore, space and time appear to be infinite or at the very least indefinite in extent.
Philosophical knowledge is not inherently different in essence from scientific knowledge; there is no special fountain of wisdom that is rushing out for philosophy yet dry to science, and the inquiries answered by philosophy are not explicitly different from those obtained from science. The essential properties of philosophy which makes it a study distinct from science, is its criticism. (truth) It critically examines the principles employed in science and in daily life, it searches out anything inconsistent that there may be within these principles, and it only accepts them when, as the result of a critical inquiry, no respective reason for rejection thereof has appeared. If, as many philosophers believed, the principles underlying the sciences were capable, when unattached from irrelevant detail, of giving us knowledge concerning the universe as a whole, such knowledge would have the same claim on our belief as scientific knowledge has; though our inquiry has not brought forth such revelation of knowledge, and therefore, as regards the doctrines of the bolder metaphysicians, has had a mainly negative review. But in regards as to what would be commonly accepted as knowledge, our result is that the main positive: we have seldom found reason to reject such knowledge as the result of our criticism and have seen no reason to suppose man incapable of the kind of knowledge which he is generally believed to possess.
However, when we speak of philosophy as a criticism of knowledge, it is necessary to superimpose a certain restriction. 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 skepticism can never be refuted. For all refutation must begin with some snippet of knowledge in which the disputants share and no argument can begin. There Hence the criticism of such knowledge in which philosophy employs must not be of this kind, if any result is to be achieved. Against this absolute skepticism, no logical argument can be advanced. But it is not difficult to see that skepticism of this kind is unreasonable. Some knowledge, such as the knowledge of the existence of our senses, appears quite indubitable, however much we thoroughly reflect upon it. Regarding to such knowledge, philosophical criticism does not require that we should abstain from beliefs. But there are beliefs such that, for example, as the belief that physical objects exactly resemble our senses which are entertained until we begin to reflect, but are found to vanish when subjected to a close inquiry. Such beliefs philosophy will have us reject, unless some new line of argument is found to support them. But to reject those beliefs which do not appear open to any objections, however closely we examine them, is not reasonable, and is not what philosophy advocates.
Philosophy is to be studied not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions, since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves: because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination, and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation; but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.”