Bertrand Russell’s The Problems of Philosophy Reaction

My initial reaction of Russell’s The Problems of Philosophy was that it was informative, well written and covered many broad aspects about the field of Philosophy. However, I do disagree with some of his rhetoric as well. Firstly, the section on ‘practical men’ is un-supported and hinders his literature as a whole. The specific line I had a problem with is when Russell writes “The ‘practical’ man… is one who recognizes only material needs, who realizes that men must have food for the body, but is oblivious of the necessity of providing food for the mind.” This line suggests that practical society does not feed the mind. Practical society as I know it is when one who goes to school, studies a subject, earns a degree, and gets a job. To me this process is extremely academically oriented. And while it is practical in the sense that the end goal is to earn money, one cannot say that people of this process are ignorant of the goods of the mind. In fact, in order to advance in this process, people are picked often solely based on their mental capabilities and nothing else (ex: SAT Scores & GPA). The second aspect of his work I disagreed with was when Russell stated “It is exclusively among the goods of the mind that the value of philosophy is to be found…” I found this ironic because in the next class we discussed The Mind-Body problem and how mental processes often relate to various physical states. Dr. Layne noted that the traditional answer to this often incorporates some form of dualism; how the body and mind are distinct yet interweaved forms of reality. I find that the Mind-Body problem contrasts greatly with Russell’s exclusive mind theory. They are mutually exclusive because to believe in one you can’t really accept the other. I personally have to reject Russell’s notion and agree with the Mind-Body proposal because one can experience something physical that inspires a rush of philosophical thinking. For example, many great musicians liked to take drugs and write their music high. They believed the physical attributes of the drugs helped them write better, deeper music and take their mind to previously unprecedented areas. But if detractors of this argument say drugs are not a good example because they are not a true aspect of the body, there are plenty of other examples. Exercise, food, relaxation, and most notably: sex, are all physical experiences of the body that can often translate to profound emotions and deep thinking, which in turn, often result in philosophical questions. Therefore, to bring it full circle, Russell’s theory that goods of the mind is exclusively where philosophy can be found is false, because philosophy can be found in the body as well.