Sense-data
Russell tries to explain how we can perceive different thing while looking at the same object. To do this he uses a table as an example. He explains ”sense-data” as the things we experience with our senses. Not the sensation itself but the things we explore with the sensation. Sense-data is the sensations we get when looking, smelling and feeling when we explore a thing. In the example of the table the sense-data is the color, the hardness and the texture of the surface.
Russell tries to explain how we can perceive different thing while looking at the same object. To do this he uses a table as an example. He explains ”sense-data” as the things we experience with our senses. Not the sensation itself but the things we explore with the sensation. Sense-data is the sensations we get when looking, smelling and feeling when we explore a thing. In the example of the table the sense-data is the color, the hardness and the texture of the surface.
Sense-data are the
things we directly detect by perception, the impression we get of a thing. The sense-data
we perceive differ from person to person and during different circumstances.
From the sense-data we can’t understand the real object but rather an idea of
it. Therefore a problem a rises, what is the relation between the sense-data
and the real object?
Statement and preposition
Both a statement and a preposition can be used to describe to describe object, situations or people. A statement is something that we are sure of, it’s a fact that we can back up with evidence. For example ”two plus two are four”. It’s a fact based on the rules of math, it’s something I know for sure. Preposition on the other hand is not that sure. A preposition is more difficult to prove. A preposition in comparison to a statement can be true or fault. A preposition is someone’s beliefs while a statement is of greater truth.
Definite Description
Russell defines the notion “Definite description” as a specific knowledge that a certain thing answers to. Meaning that a definite description describes a singular specific object. For example “The cat is small” this description differ from the general description “Cats are small”. The first phrase suggests that we’re determined on which cat we’re talking about and it’s a specific cat that we know. The second phrase is the opposite, it describes cats in general and is therefore not a definite description. This is what Russell calls “Ambiguous description” it’s a phrase that is underdetermined.
Russell defines the notion “Definite description” as a specific knowledge that a certain thing answers to. Meaning that a definite description describes a singular specific object. For example “The cat is small” this description differ from the general description “Cats are small”. The first phrase suggests that we’re determined on which cat we’re talking about and it’s a specific cat that we know. The second phrase is the opposite, it describes cats in general and is therefore not a definite description. This is what Russell calls “Ambiguous description” it’s a phrase that is underdetermined.
Knowledge
According to Russell it’s hard to obtain real knowledge and the knowledge must be based on sensations and sense-data. He is rather critical to the word know and explains how knowledge not always has to be of true value although we often think of information as true knowledge. But knowledge can be booth true or false since it can be based on false premises and therefore be false. As an example Russell talks about the late Prime Minister Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman. He states that if a man believes that the Prime Minister’s last name began with a B his belief is true. But if he then states that the late Prime Minister was Mr. Balfour his belief is still correct but his statement is based on false premises and therefore the statement “Mr Balfour is the lade Prime Minister” is false. In a way Russell reminds me of Descartes’ “Cogito ergo sum”, you have to doubt the things around you to know for certain what’s real and what’s true.
According to Russell it’s hard to obtain real knowledge and the knowledge must be based on sensations and sense-data. He is rather critical to the word know and explains how knowledge not always has to be of true value although we often think of information as true knowledge. But knowledge can be booth true or false since it can be based on false premises and therefore be false. As an example Russell talks about the late Prime Minister Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman. He states that if a man believes that the Prime Minister’s last name began with a B his belief is true. But if he then states that the late Prime Minister was Mr. Balfour his belief is still correct but his statement is based on false premises and therefore the statement “Mr Balfour is the lade Prime Minister” is false. In a way Russell reminds me of Descartes’ “Cogito ergo sum”, you have to doubt the things around you to know for certain what’s real and what’s true.
I think you puts up an excellent point when comparing Russel to Descartes. Descartes quote "Cogito ergo sum", "I think, therefor I am", takes Russels arguments even further, which in my opinion is good. To think about the extreme will make the "normal" more understanding.
SvaraRaderaI absolutely agree with you. It is good to look at the extremes sometimes to put more context to the normal, all though it could be equally diffusing if you don't understand the alternatives. For me in this case with Russell it gave me a better understanding because I've familiar with Descartes, but for someone who is not maybe he/she would have been more confused trying to figure out Descartes as well as Russell.
SvaraRadera