In his Problems of Philosophy, Bertrand Russell tackles the problem of the value of philosophy and why it should be studied. He claims that philosophy does have value for students of philosophy and for everyday life. Coming from a pragmatic view, Russell points out the practical consequences of studying philosophy. In agreeing with Russell, I will argue against the position that there is no reason to study philosophy.
             One of the foremost arguments against philosophy is that it provides no definite answers. Opponents state it can give hypothetical answers, but none that can be proven. This is from a scientific point of view. The first reply to this argument is that it has answered questions. As pointed out by Russell (155), William James in Some Problems of Philosophy (10), and in lecture (Eves, 10/03), all the branches of sciences share their roots in philosophy. As man pondered throughout time and arrived at proven explanations, a new science would develop. For example it used to be the accepted belief that the world was flat. Next someone observes and questions if that assumption is really true. Eventually we have the Copernicus theorizing that the sun is the center and not the earth. Today we have the science of astronomy. Another science that branched off from philosophy is psychology. Besides being a student of philosophy, I also study psychology. All throughout my current textbooks, now knowing the basis of an argument, I am aware of the writing styles. As the authors discuss different hypotheses of why we do what do, I can now see they are clearly illustrated as an argument with its conclusions. Words such as thus, hence, and therefore stand out. It stills holds on to its roots of philosophy.
             Another way to state the lack of definite answers is to rephrase the argument as philosophy makes no advancements. In lecture, this argument was addressed. Professor Eves points out that the arguments given for ph...