Andrew Fryer wrote:The point about induction is that it demonstrates one of the limitations on academic philosophy (that logical constructs rely on unprovable axioms is another limitation). The last chapter of Russell's The Problems of Philosophy is about what knowledge is or can be, at best, in the academic philosophical context. Even in maths you don't prove induction beyond the Peano set, a relatively new axiom.
I'd like to disagree. Induction is limited, not philosophy. We have to work from axioms, true enough, but this is not induction. We'd also have deduction and abduction. As for Russell, he was a failure at philosophy and I would never recommend him except as an example of how not to do philosophy. He states of himself that he has learned nothing at all from metaphysics so it's weird that he is rated as a philosopher and it goes to show how high the bar is set in academia. His colleague Spencer Brown was more successful but Russell couldn't see it.
. In very mild cases of neurosis, mysticisms such as those peddled by Aldous Huxley (it seems actual Perennial Philosophy is about 2,000 years old - Huxley steals the term for something else) may be able to help, but in more severe cases, forget it!
More like 4000 years, and maybe more. We'll never know. Huxley uses the word as I would but he did not have the internet and his selection of quotations and discussion of them is rather narrow as a result, and he doesn't explain anything much but mostly just presents its literature. A practitioner is highly unlikely to have a problem with neurosis unless they are just starting out.
(My attacks on Huxley are partly tongue-in-cheek from having read the Doors of Perception 35 years ago - he took such small amounts of hallucinogen his highs were less powerful than those I get from a cheese sandwich and a cup of coffee
No hallucinogens would be necessary so the amount he took is not important. I feel he did us all a great service with his book but times have moved on and there are many alternative introductions, some of which are better at explaining the view Huxley endorses.
On YT there are one or two TED talks by Bernardo Kastrup that might help to clarify the link between scientific research and the perennial view. But each person comes from a different place so maybe they won't suit.
I hope I don't seem too argumentative. I'm trying to prevent misrepresentation and promote accuracy in respect of a view that is not well-known here, not ram a view down anyone's throat.