Bertrand Russells Problems of Philosophy Appearance and Reality.

Introduction Bertrand Russell claims in his writing that there is not a single knowledge or reality that can not be doubted. Our aim in philosophy is to clearly answer questions which are as yet unanswered, or not stated as truth, in a critical manner, after having taken all possible matters into account, without any ambiguity. He uses an example of observing the objects that surround him, a table being one of them, and acknowledging that noone else in the room would sense the table, or perceive it, exactly as he does from the angle at which he is viewing it. From this he is reminded of one of the distinctions that causes trouble in philosophy; the distinction between appearance and reality. An artist would see it from an even different perspective to that of an ordinary person in terms of perspective, light, shade, colouring, and so on.

The Existence of matter

Russell reminds us that using our senses to determine reality or the truth of reality is dangerous because there is no logical reasoning attached to the decision, it would be purely sensory. Doubting the reality of the object would mean that its reality is inferred by the perceptions made from the senses of the person observing it. Thus it is termed sensedata. Then what is the relation of the sense data to the real object; if it really does exist, that is. The object is termed the physical object. The collection of all physical objects is called matter. Russell introduces Bishop Berkeley as the first philosopher who claimed that there is no such thing as matter and that nothing exists independent of our observation and senses; and that the world consists of nothing but our minds and thoughts. He refuted the idea that something can exist outside of our minds, or when we are not present to perceive it. Therefore if any object still exists beyond our sensory observation it does so because it is in the mind of God. Other philosophers agree that nothing is real except the mind, thus all matter exists as a result of the mind. For example

Leibniz(1646-1716), who claims that what appears as matter is nothing other than a collection of more or less rudimentary minds. Russell indicates that these philosophers, even though they refute the actual existence of matter, still in another sense admit that matter exists. Thus, what we directly see and sense is merely appearance, which we believe to be a sign of reality. But if the reality is not what it seems, can we presume that reality actually exists.

Plausibility of the argument What Bertrand Russell is trying to establish in this chapter certainly carries a lot of weight and he tries hard to establish reality regarding matter and our perception of objects that we sense. As with Descartes belief, that a thought process of first believing that nothing is truth and then building up the facts from there onward to prove the truth of the existence of anything, is the best method.

Russells analysis and conclusions in his determination seem to go full circle; from wondering whether anything can truly be stated as real through proving that nothing can be regarded as real, then back to quoting other philosophers decisions that matter, or certain objects, exist in the mind of God, and their existence is not dependant only on our observation and our thoughts.

Conclusion There does not seem to be any certainty about the true existence of objects, or their reality. So the thought continues; does anything actually exist? Regarding the table referred to earlier; if one were to take it back to the basics of its components, i.e. wood from trees, nails from iron ore, etc., one might get closer to determining whether the table actually exists, or not. Since everything in the Universe is made of atoms (energy) in their multiplicity of forms, organs, living organisms, and so on, one can surely accept that matter actually exists? However, anything made from basic matter, like the table, is a construct of natural

resources, and as to whether it actually exists as an object, independent of our observation, is yet another question alltogether. A question still unanswered, in my opinion.