How does he think philosophy is different from science
Russell is arguing that philosophy is valuable. You’ll want to think about his argument using his own key ideas:
How does he think philosophy is different from science?
Does he think philosophy is different from science in a good or bad sense, like one is better than the other, or that they are just different methods each worthy in their own way?
When he talks about things like “prejudice” and “common sense”, what do you suppose he means?
In our day, prejudice usually means something like racism or sexism; but for Russell, it may not be that, it might just be a lack of freedom of thought, or a lack of “thinking critically” and “seeing all sides of the issues.” What do you think? Hint, this relates directly to the last few paragraphs of his reading where he says something about “expanding the self.” When you expand yourself, does Russell mean physically, mentally, spiritually?
You may find it helpful to listen to the following 15 minutes podcast (number 15 on the list) before participating in the discussion prompt. It is a discussion by Dr. Janet Radcliffe Richards on the definition of philosophy and problems surrounding the study of the subject.
PODCAST: Taking Stock – What is Philosophy (and what it is not) – https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/taking-stock/id380223522?i=132727831&mt=2
PODCAST TRANSCRIPT: Taking Stock – What is Philosophy (and what it is not) – 01 Radcliffe-Richards-Taking Stock.pdf
Requirements: a Paragraph
Image preview to how does he think philosophy is different from science