This Assignment Is Intended To Get You Thinking More About S ✓ Solved

This assignment is intended to get you thinking more about t

This assignment is intended to get you thinking more about the nature and value of philosophy in light of readings from Bertrand Russell and Ann Baker. There are three parts. Do all three.

1) What is a philosophical question that intrigues you? Clearly articulate the question and clarify as needed. Keeping in mind readings from Russell and Baker and classroom discussions, explain why this counts as a philosophical question. In what branch(s) of philosophy would you place it and why? What syllabus readings will help address it?

2) Russell argues that philosophic contemplation requires setting aside personal biases, concerns, and prejudices. Which of your own biases, concerns, or prejudices will you need to set aside and why? What value will doing so have? How successful do you expect to be? Engage with Russell on this point.

3) Russell says, “The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty.” With that in mind, what do you hope to get out of this class? If it’s unlikely to provide answers, why study philosophy? What will philosophy do for you that other disciplines (e.g. physics) will not? Include ideas or quotes from Russell or Baker to support your case.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

This paper answers the three-part assignment above by (1) articulating a philosophical question that intrigues me, (2) identifying personal biases I must set aside in philosophic contemplation, and (3) explaining what I hope to gain from studying philosophy given Russell’s emphasis on uncertainty (Russell, 1912; Baker, 2019).

1. A Philosophical Question That Intrigues Me

Question: "What does it mean to lead a good life, and how do we justify claims that one kind of life is better than another?" This question demands conceptual clarification: "good" may refer to moral goodness, well-being, or meaningfulness; "justify" requires epistemic standards for normative claims. It qualifies as philosophical because it raises foundational normative issues that are not resolvable solely by empirical data—it requires conceptual analysis, moral theorizing, and reflection on values (Russell, 1912; Blackburn, 1999).

This question sits primarily in ethics (normative ethics and value theory) but also touches epistemology (how we justify normative claims) and metaphysics (what constitutes well-being). Baker’s taxonomy encourages locating questions across branches; asking what counts as a “good life” naturally traverses practical ethics, metaethics, and even political philosophy if social goods are considered (Baker, 2019).

Syllabus readings on Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia, utilitarian and deontological frameworks, and modern discussions of well-being (e.g., philosophy of happiness and meaning) will directly help. Russell’s reflections on the centrality of questions that open up inquiry without guaranteeing answers support treating this question as philosophically valuable because it clarifies ends and values rather than merely cataloging facts (Russell, 1912).

2. Biases, Concerns, and Prejudices to Set Aside

Russell emphasizes setting aside personal attachments so philosophical contemplation can proceed objectively (Russell, 1912). For me, three tendencies must be bracketed:

• Confirmation bias: The impulse to favor moral theories that align with my cultural upbringing must be suspended so I can evaluate rival ethical frameworks on their merits.
• Practicalism: A tendency to prioritize immediately actionable advice over conceptual clarity; philosophy often values careful analysis over quick fixes, and I must accept that.
• Emotional investment: Deep personal commitments (e.g., to particular life projects) can cloud impartial assessment of normative claims; suspending attachment helps reveal underlying assumptions.

Setting these aside encourages clear articulation of concepts and fair comparison between theories, which enhances critical thinking and makes my conclusions more defensible (Cappelen, 2012; Audi, 2011). I expect partial success: total neutrality is impossible, but disciplined reflection and engagement with diverse readings (including Russell’s and Baker’s) will reduce bias and improve clarity.

3. What I Hope to Get Out of This Class

Russell’s claim that the value of philosophy lies in its uncertainty reframes the course’s goal: not to supply final answers but to expand our intellectual horizon and sharpen our capacity to think (Russell, 1912). From this class I hope to gain:

• Conceptual tools: Better ability to analyze and clarify complex questions about ethics, knowledge, and meaning.
• Intellectual humility: Comfort with uncertainty and improved skills in weighing competing arguments rather than rushing to judgment.
• Practical wisdom: While answers may be provisional, the inquiry helps guide life choices by exposing assumptions and highlighting trade-offs.

Why study philosophy if it yields uncertainty? Because uncertainty functions as a pedagogical engine: it compels us to examine presuppositions, to sharpen argumentation, and to cultivate the reflective capacities that other disciplines (like physics) treat differently (Blackburn, 1999; Gaarder, 1995). Physics excels at describing and predicting natural phenomena via empirical methods; philosophy uniquely interrogates the conceptual foundations—what counts as explanation, what justice demands, what knowledge is—questions that underlie scientific practice itself (Audi, 2011).

Philosophy complements science by clarifying terms, critiquing presuppositions, and addressing normative questions that science cannot answer alone. For example, physics can tell us how to produce energy efficiently, but not whether we ought to prioritize growth over sustainability without philosophical deliberation about values. As Russell argues, philosophy’s lack of final answers is not a deficit but a source of intellectual expansion that cultivates critical sensibilities and a broader understanding of human concerns (Russell, 1912).

Conclusion

The question of what makes a life good is philosophically rich because it requires normative justification, conceptual work, and cross-branch engagement. By consciously setting aside confirmation bias, undue practicalism, and emotional attachments, I can approach such questions more fairly. Finally, embracing Russell’s view that philosophy’s uncertainty is valuable, I expect this course to sharpen my conceptual tools and foster intellectual humility—benefits that complement but differ from the empirical certainty sought in disciplines like physics (Baker, 2019; Russell, 1912).

References

• Russell, B. (1912). The Problems of Philosophy. Oxford University Press. (See essay "The Value of Philosophy")
• Baker, A. (2019). Course readings: "What is Philosophy?" Unpublished course packet, Philosophy 101.
• Blackburn, S. (1999). Think: A Compelling Introduction to Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
• Cappelen, H. (2012). Philosophical Method. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophical-method/
• Audi, R. (2011). Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction. Routledge.
• Plato. (c. 375 BCE). The Republic. (Classic work on the good life and justice.)
• Descartes, R. (1641). Meditations on First Philosophy. (Foundational work in epistemology and method.)
• Gaarder, J. (1995). Sophie's World: A Novel About the History of Philosophy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Blackwell, R. (2010). Value Theory and the Good Life. In Oxford Handbook of Value Theory. (Overview of contemporary approaches to well-being.)
• Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (n.d.). Entries on "Ethics" and "Value Theory." Retrieved from https://iep.utm.edu/