The Problems of Philosophy (Russell): Appearance and Reality

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."- Bertrand Russell 

Bertrand Russell is widely regarded as the most influential philosopher of the 20th century, which is no easy task for his lifetime also saw the likes of Wittgenstein, Sartre, Heidegger, Rawls, and more. More than providing a breakthrough perspective or a quantum leap in philosophy, he did what philosophers rarely ever do (with the exception of Voltaire). Russell systemized the entire Western philosophical tradition in his most influential text, "The History of Western Philosophy", and brought to the masses such knowledge which was previously confined to academia and elite inner circles. Quine famously remarked that it has been this contribution of Russell's (of providing intricate philosophical theories in layman language, from Thales to Dewey) which inspired his generation to take up this profession. 

Russell was only two years shy from completing a 100 years, living through immense political turmoil, two world wars, witnessing new forms of government, seeing colonizers fall and colonies emancipated; all of which made him a prominent anti-war activist. Surrounded by controversy most of the time, he was imprisoned twice; an experience he thoroughly enjoyed as it gave him more time to write. He travelled, taught, wrote, won a Nobel in Literature, founded analytic philosophy, gave rise to logical positivism, married four times, and even appeared as a cameo in the Hindi film "Aman", 1967. 

His protege, the linguistic philosopher Wittgenstein, said that Russell's works should be colour coded. His works on mathematical logic as red, which all students should read. His works on ethics and politics as blue, which no one should be allowed to read. 

Notorious as he was for having blunt opinions on controversial issues, his courage brought about change in a field which was previously occupied with answering the same questions over and over again. 

To bring about a constructive discussion, he outlined problems which have plagued philosophy for centuries, in his 1912 text "The Problems of Philosophy." He thinks philosophy has been far too invested in repeated, failed attempts of trying to answer questions which lead to regress. A little bit like this: Can we prove that there is an external world? Can we prove cause and effect? Can we prove our assertions? Can we validate any of our generalizations?

For Russell, philosophy cannot answer these questions, and its methodology and value should be applied elsewhere. 

In Chapter 1 of his book, he authors the renowned "Table" example, discusses the concepts of appearance and reality, sensation and sense data; all of which ignited one of the greatest debates in philosophical history. The debate between what things seem to be, and what they are. 

Russell's Enquiry

The objective of his enquiry is to answer the question:

"Is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it?"

On his epistemological quest, he uses the methodology of philosophical reasoning as philosophy allows for a dogma-free, critical approach for even the most commonly held notions. Russell's purpose is to make the reader realize that after a series of radical doubt, even the most self-evident or confident assumptions can be reconsidered. It's difficult to characterize him either as a rationalist or an empiricist. Russell accepts that knowledge is derived from present experiences, but to characterize propositions borne out of immediate experiences as knowledge, is very likely to be wrong. This is in clear contrast to Moore's common-sense realism. 

The Infamous 'Table' of Philosophy

Russell begins his inquiry using Cartesian methodology. He gives an example of a table, the table which later featured in practically every analytical theory. 

"It seems to me that I am now sitting in a chair, at a table of a certain shape, on which I see sheets of paper with writing or print."- Bertrand Russell, Ch. 1, Appearance and Reality

Here, all these "facts" are called into question, as to whether knowledge of such things is possible at all. The example of the table is introduced by Russell to bare the ordinary assumptions one may have which further helps strengthen his observation. The table in the room will be present for anyone who comes inside to view it. The existence of the table seems very evident as one can see or touch it. However, Russell demands that as obvious as this may be, it still requires careful consideration before it is designated as knowledge. 

"To make our difficulties plain, let us concentrate our attention on the table. To the eye it is oblong, brown and shiny, to the touch it is smooth and cool and hard; when I tap it, it gives out a wooden sound. Anyone who sees and feels and hears the table will agree with this description..."- Bertrand Russell, Ch. 1, Appearance and Reality

Though the table may be the same object for everyone, the appearance will differ according to the distribution of light and individual capacities of perceiving. If one has colour blindness, it will appear differently. The viral internet sensation of the Dress in 2015 is worth citing here. 

To some it appears as blue and black, and to others as golden and white; while the underlying object (which is the actual dress) is the same. Similarly, if different people are viewing the same table at the same moment, none of them would view it exactly the same, as no two people can occupy one area of space. Even if the perceptions are similar, they will never be identical because the appearance will change (even slightly) from one position to the other. Any slight change in the point of view will alter the way light is reflected, and the way it is perceived. 

Distinction of Appearance and Reality 

It is here that Russell gave way to one of the most celebrated and highly debated innovations of philosophy, the distinction of appearance and reality. While on the face of it, this distinction might seem obvious, but the implications imbued within have altered analytic philosophy, and set the stage for logical positivism. 

Russell refuses to accept the theory of "appearance as it is" or "objects as they are". Rather, for Russell, there is a difference between how the table appears to be and how it actually is. Cognition here, is not of the object (the table) but of the appearance. But in saying this, he does not deny the existence of the object (table) because that is the one point of commonality. For example, the table's colour may appear as different shades of brown to different individuals, but not an entirely different colour like red. So, the brown of the table is a point of commonality, and thus, the object has to exist.

Whatsoever the perceptor is cognizing is not a cognition of the object, but how the object appears to be. Our knowledge claims are related to experiences. Objectivity in the object becomes the focal point, when at the same time one's own subjectivity also plays a role. This explains why Russell uses conditional statements like "if at all the real world exists..."

He does not treat appearances as illusions or mis-guiding visions; rather, when one gains an appearance, it is through inference that one can claim that the real world exists. By the appearance of the table, it can be inferred that it exists. 

Since it is shown that no two people can share one identical point of view, Russell doubts whether one real colour of the table even exists. 

"...that there is no colour which preeminently appears to be the colour of the table, or even of any one particular part of the table...this colour is not something inherent in the table, but something depending upon the table and the spectator and the way the light falls on the table."- Bertrand Russell, Ch. 1, Appearance and Reality

This he does not just with colour, but other characteristics as well. 

Colour: We may take a table to be of brown colour, but the colour we take the table to have is hardly ever what we really perceive. Less illuminated parts of the table appear a darker brown than more illuminated parts. Sometimes, due to the reflection of light, it may even appear completely white. Still, we take the table to have a uniform shade of brown, even though we never see a single uniform shade.

Shape: The table top appears to be rectangular. Sometimes it looks oblong, depending from where it is looked at. 

Texture: The table looks smooth but upon closer inspection, one can see blemishes on the surface texture. Through a microscope, it looks to be very uneven.

Touch: The table feels hard but the feeling of hardness depends on how hard we press on it, and with what body part. 

So, what we immediately perceive is nothing like what we take the object (table) to be in itself. For Russell, any metaphysical qualities (texture, shape, colour, touch) are not inherent in the object but are a product of three elements in cognitive processes: the object, subject, and medium of cognition. Now it is assumed that the real table is not immediately known, but must be an inference of what is immediately known. 

Here, Russell poses two main questions:

1) Is there a real table at all?

2) If so, what sort of object can it be?

Sensation and Sense Data 

To answer these questions, Russell introduces the concepts of sensation and sense data. 

Sense data: something innately present in the object, like the shade of the brown colour.  This could be of any nature (shape, colour, size, texture) as it is the raw material. Sense data are immediately known in sensation.

Sensation: when there is contact between sense and object. It is the immediate awareness which cannot be communicated in language. 

For example, when seeing a colour, one has a sensation of the colour but the colour itself is the sense datum. The colour is the data or the raw material, the awareness of it is the sensation. 

So, when knowing anything about the table, it must be via the sense data which produces the sensation. However, it is not right to say that the table is the sense data or that the table holds the properties of sense data. The real table can be called the physical object. The table constitutes the entire composition, but sense data is a separate property which we can feel. Sense data could be numerous in number so the sense data perceived will vary from person to person. This is why the sense data is not a direct property of the table/object. 

In the Hans Christensen classic "The Little Mermaid", when the mermaid (Ariel) comes up to the surface on land, she encounters a fork. Immediately, Ariel begins combing her hair with it because for her, that fork serves the same purpose a comb did when she lived underwater. She has never seen or used a fork for eating before. Though people on land and Ariel perceive the same object, to each the sense data produces a different sensation and marks a different purpose. 

Here Russell asserts that physical objects are the real world (like noumena was for Kant or ideas for Plato). The real world (physical object/matter) is not the same as the appearance (table/constructed composition). For him, there is a table but the way one is perceiving it is a construction. Sense data is innately present in the object, and the collection of physical objects is known as matter. For Russell, physical object is actually real, whereas for many philosophers, Greek and Indian, the physical object is thought of as the appeared one.

Hereon after, the two questions are rephrased as:

1) Is there any such thing as matter?

2) If so, what is its nature?

Matter-Mind Bifurcation

Russell discusses the first question with reference to the British empiricist Berkeley. 

"The philosopher who first brought prominently forward the reasons for regarding the immediate objects of our sense as not existing independently of us was Bishop Berkeley."- Bertrand Russell, Ch. 1, Appearance and Reality

Berkeley was of the view that there is no such thing as matter. The world consists of nothing but minds and ideas. He advocated, "Esse est percipi", "to be, is to be perceived". The British empiricist went so far as to consider that existence of matter can be denied without absurdity and that if there are any objects which exist independently of us, they cannot be the immediate objects of our sensation. He held that the mental form of the object is superimposed on the object. 

Russell cites Berkeley to further strengthen his own argument. There is a dichotomy presumed between the mind and the matter. Stemming from this dichotomy, Berkeley does not deny the existence of sense-data, which is taken as existence of something. Rather, he denies anything which is non-mental. Russell takes forward the case that sense data belongs to the object. 

Philosophers apart from Berkeley have held that though the table's existence doesn't depend on being seen personally, it does depend on being seen by some mind. 

Russell argues that the empiricist view is too idealist. Whether Berkeley who believes that matter is a collection of ideas, or Leibniz who advocates Monads; such arguments are fallacious. Russell makes an important observation here. Though these philosophers are caught in the mind-matter dichotomy, they do admit the existence of matter. Both Berkeley and Leibniz would agree that the table exists, whether as an idea or as what appears in the minds. This answers the first question, "Is there any such thing as matter?" It is also agreed by many that though the sense data is subjectively dependent, the occurrence of it is a sign that there exists something independently.

Russell accepts the version of matter which the earlier empiricists do not deny. He re-emphasizes that what one gathers from their senses, directly in terms of appearance, are signs from which one can infer reality. Whenever looking at an object, the senses immediately inform us not of the truth of the objects, but only the truth about certain sense data which depend on the relation between the individual and the object. What is directly seen and felt is an appearance which gives some sign of the underlying reality.

What one knows of reality is that it is not what it seems. 

Russell has emphasized the need to be able to substantiate that the knowledge we hold as true, is faithful to reality. His distinction of appearance and reality is foresight combined with caution of human progression into the post-truth era.