Task 4:

1.) Do you agree with what the author is saying? Why or why not? For the most part, I agree with what Russell is saying. I agree that philosophy's value lies in what it can do for the human mind. However, I find what Russell's personal concept of philosophy is is, simply, critical thinking with a hint of optimistic spiritualism (I have no idea how Russell would have described his beliefs, but I certainly think he found education and philosophizing to be a gateway toward a higher form of Self and Man). Critical thinking is certainly a way for people to approach things from an even-keeled point of view, but I doubt that humanity would get as far as Russell says simply by a much larger digestion of philosophy.

2.) Do you have any questions about the text? I wonder about how this particular work by Russell was received. Furthermore, what sort of climate did he right it in? Was he prompted by anything? Did he prompt anything because of this work? Was this work influential in any large way? These are plenty of questions, of course, but I hope that they are understood toward one whole idea: cause-and-effect.

Task 3: Be able to understand the text and be able to put it into your own words.

1.) What are the central arguments or main point in the text? The text supports its main idea, that philosophy needs to be studied to be cleared of misunderstandings, by pointing out the effects philosophy has on the human mind, and, therefore, why it is of use to humanity. Russell makes the argument that even though philosophy has no way to be verified like the other sciences, it prods the human mind into thinking more broadly and creatively by forcing people to ask perplexing or uncomfortable questions. Another point which Russell makes is that philosophy gives the mind potential to think so impersonally as to view things in a nearly god-like way.

2.) How are arguments or main points supported? That is, what reasons are given to support the conclusions? Russell supports his arguments with broad assertions concerning the machinations of the mind and people's attitudes toward philosophy. He writes in such a way as to parrot what is heard in real life concerning attitudes toward philosophy, most noticeable when he talks about "practical people."

3.) Note any assumptions the author gives without giving evidence. Strangely enough, Russell backs not one section of his argument with data of any kind. His assertions are made merely by what he has been met with in his experiences. There are no polls or graphs about people's attitudes toward philosophy. There are no quotes about what people think of philosophy. There is nothing which qualifies or quantifies besides what Russell himself asserts. Even while this is so, the subject Russell is commenting upon is, in and of itself, abstract. What Russell seems to be demanding of his readers, on a subliminal level, is use of common sense and critical faculties to piece together his information in a way we can except. Referring back to my second point about what Russell is arguing in his text, the idea that humanity can achieve a worldview in proximity to that of God (which, from what has been presented thus far to this class about Russell, I can only assume he means to use God as an allegory for some universal principle) is quite a leap to make. Russell assumes that if humanity abandons its territorial, material concerns that we may ascend to a point of knowledge of ourselves and the universe that will bind us to the latter like never before.

4.) Reread important passages and note sections of the text you cannot make sense of. I cannot really find anything in the text that I cannot make sense of, except in the meaning of the not-Self. I understand it well enough to see what Russell means by it, but I am left with ideas about its implications (for lack of a better word). However, that is not altogether what is meant by the question.

Task 2, Question 5:

Are there any reading or discussion questions associated with the reading? If so, what do these questions tell you about the reading? There are no reading questions paired with the text itself. Beyond these questions I have answered which belong to a separate document, there are no questions which qualify the text in direct conjunction with it.

Task 2, Vocabulary Word 3:

trammels- restrictions to someone's freedom of actions.

Task 2, Vocabulary Word 1:

fortuitous- happening by lucky chance; fortunate.

Task 2: Obtain a basic understanding of the text.

1.) What is the main point of the opening paragraph? The purpose of the opening paragraph is to call to attention the necessity of a broader understanding of philosophy and why there is a need for such understanding.

2.) What is the main point of the closing paragraph? The main idea behind the closing paragraph is that philosophy needs to be studied because the consideration of broad topics broadens the mind.

3.) Note the main topics throughout each section:

• Philosophy must be studied because it is misunderstood.
• Philosophy is the only study which cannot show any material results.
• Even if all material needs were met, people would still lack that which philosophy gives.
• Once a question is answered of psychology, it becomes part of the sciences.
• However, there are questions concerning spirituality and existential mysteries which can only come under the purview of philosophy, since these things cannot be directly studied.
• Attempts to answer spiritual or universal questions have led to rigid dogma.
• A person who is not philosophical is rigid, territorial, and apprehensive.
• A universal perspective is not tainted with temporary fears, tastes, or desires. It considers things outside of the human lens.
• Humanity is benefited by the study of philosophy because it enlarges the scope of the human mind and reduces its prejudices.

Task 1: Obtain a general sense of the features of the text.

I.) What is the title of the reading? What does the title tell you about the text? "The Value of Philosophy," as the text is titled, opens up the promise that the merits of understanding philosophy will be delineated.

II.) Is the text broken into sections? If so, what do the section titles tell you about the text? The two points at which the text is split into sections is at the title and the citation list. The title of the text, "The Value of Philosophy," acts to tie all of Bertrand Russell's points to a central focus. The citation is used by the textbook to source this particular work by Russell.

III.) Are there footnotes in the text? If so, what do the footnotes tell you about the text? There are no footnotes paired with the text. There is a section concerning "Citation and Use" at the end of the text, but that refers to the origin of the text itself, not a further explanation of an in-text citation such as a footnote would be.

IV.) Is there an abstract before the text? If so, what does the abstract tell you about the text? There is not an abstract before the text. That is, there is nothing which explains or contextualizes the text beforehand.