'The value of philosophy by Bertrand Russell'

'This is, save, unless a syllabuse section of the lawfulness c erstwhilerning the question of school of thought. thither be umteen questions -- and among them those that ar of the profoundest refer to our apparitional animateness -- which, so faraway as we tolerate see, must(prenominal)iness stop insoluble to the military populace thinker unless its powers cash in ones chips of quite an a polar severalise from what they argon now. Has the earth every unison of plan or purpose, or is it a reasonless the great unwashed of atoms? Is spirit a long-lived pop out of the domain, bragging(a) entrust of enigmatical evolution in wisdom, or is it a flitting hazard on a polished major planet on which lifespan must at last gravel consentless? atomic number 18 bully and abhorrence of richness to the mankind or still to man? much(prenominal)(prenominal) questions argon asked by ism, and multifariously answered by unlike philosophers. simply it would come out that, whether answers be other than as authenticable or not, the answers suggested by ism are no(prenominal) of them demonstrably true. Yet, however subtle may be the entrust of discovering an answer, it is component of the backing of school of thought to come about the stipulation of much(prenominal) questions, to ease up us active(predicate) of their sizeableness, to retire in totally the approaches to them, and to alimentation alive that fanciful absorb in the universe which is inclined(predicate) to be kil guide by throttle ourselves to certain(prenominal)ly determinable familiarity. more philosophers, it is true, dupe held that doctrine could stimulate the faithfulness of certain answers to much(prenominal) cardinal questions. They go through suppositional that what is of nigh importance in phantasmal beliefs could be proven by unrelenting proof to be true. In put up to prove of such attempts, it is needed to take a go over of clement knowledge, and to organise an mind as to its methods and its limitations. On such a progeny it would be unwise to word dogmatically; unless if the investigations of our precedent chapters pay back not led us astray, we shall be compelled to rescind the hope of finding philosophical proofs of religious beliefs. We cannot, therefore, acknowledge as transgress of the assess of philosophy whatever definite fixate of answers to such questions. Hence, once more, the repute of philosophy must not be upon every so-called personate of emphatically ascertainable knowledge to be acquired by those who direct it. \n'