Famous Thinkers Essay Dr. King and Bertrand Russell

?The Ways Of Meeting Oppression,? by Martin Luther king Jr., gives an over view of how one man classifies his ways of dealing with oppression and how they were dealt with during segregation. . During the first half of the twentieth century segregation was the way of life in the south. It was excepted, and even though it was morally wrong, it still went on, as it there was nothing wrong with it. African Americans were treated as if they where a somehow sub-human, they were treated because of the color of their skin that somehow, someway they were different. Some African Americans began to ?tacitly adjust themselves to oppression?(King), or as King saw it acquiescence. Others began to stand up for themselves but in a matter that involved violence. There where those that stood up for themselves by using nonviolence resistance which was Dr. King?s ideal method of dealing with oppression. ?Nonviolence is the answer to the racial, political and moral question. . .the need for man to overcome oppression and violence. . .?(King). This captures both Dr. King?s powerful feeling and stance on nonviolence as the way to winning the respect of the oppressors. Like Martin Luther king Jr. I to have learned the strategies of how people deal with the three types of oppression which are: acquiescence, violence, and non-violence resistance, but trough historical instances and my personal experiences in the past.

Dr. King was looking for support from members of society in order to create an effective change in society’s ethics. Moreover, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s large audience and public movement used nonviolent tactics, such as sit-ins, marches, and freedom rides to put the Civil Rights Movement in action. Before directly acting against the law, Dr. King had used other means to try to obtain justice for all; he used the four basic steps of a nonviolent campaign to decide how he would approach this cultural issue of racism: determination of whether injustices exist, negotiation, self-purification, and direct action (King 1). After the first three steps of his nonviolent campaign proved to be ineffective, he decided to seek direct action through a large demonstration of civil disobedience. Dr. King had a tremendous impact on the segregation issue in not just Birmingham, but the entire country, by leading the Civil Rights Movement, which eventually helped influence anti-segregation legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that affected a massive population of the entire country. Although Dr. King’s journey ended in his assassination, his relentless passion for equal rights was empowering to many and helped to create a more just society.

Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. Believed in achieving equality through peaceful demonstrations: “Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred” (King, pg.3 ¶.1). He felt that equality had to be gained through honorable, civil ways otherwise those fighting for equality were no better than the slave owners. We can see this best when he says, “We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protests to degenerate into physical violence” (King, pg.3 ¶.2). MLK felt that it was in the best interests of all parties for black to integrate into society. A couple of his quotes that show this best are, “I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave-owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood” (King, pg.4 ¶.6). and “I have a dream that one day in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers” (King, pg.5 ¶.2).

In April 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. was imprisoned for his participation in nonviolent demonstrations against segregation. He was placed in jail for eleven days during which he composed the “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” which was in response to an open letter that declared his efforts for racial justice as being “unwise and untimely.” In this letter, he defended the tactic of nonviolent resistance to racism. The letter also stressed that people have a moral responsibility to break unjust laws as well as to take immediate action preferably than to wait endlessly for the courts to bring about justice. King’s understanding of justice is best summed up when he states that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” In other words,

Martin Luther King Jr’s idea of ending segregation made the most sense in the 1960s. King had the ability to use compassion to fight the war on segregation and knew it was possible to one day bring white and black people together. He knew that integrating was the best option for African Americans, rather than completely separating from the white society. He also recognized that nonviolence was their best weapon. It would allow him to gain the support of whites and black, while preventing a bloody revolution. If violence had been used, then African Americans would only have been fueling the hate and opposition from the South. King knew that his ideas on nonviolence to end segregation were best for all people in

Martin Luther King Jr. discusses the advantages and purposes for his theory of nonviolent direct action in his Letter From Birmingham City Jail. He shows four basic steps that must be taken to achieve nonviolent action. They include 1) collection of facts to determine whether injustices are alive; 2) negotiation; 3) self-purification; and 4) direct action. Each of these steps will be explained as part of King's argument later in this essay. The main purpose of a nonviolent campaign is to force any community to confront a problem rather than refuse to negotiate or face a specific issue. In the letter, King discusses his group's reasons for coming to Birmingham.

King's mission was to end segregation. African Americans could not eat at the same restaurants, drink from the same water fountains or use the same restrooms. Peaceful protests erupted throughout the south which brought about nationwide attention. The Birmingham Police did not take well to the protesters and used attack dogs and fire hoses on the demonstrators. Dr. King was jailed along with many of his supporters, including hundreds of schoolchildren. In his letter he defends his non-violent approach for cultural change. He makes clear his position that surpressed people past and present will eventually grow tired and will see their own justice. He wanted to lead the protesters to have a collective mindset to make change without violence and to take a moral high road to affect change. He clarifies his views as to why oppressed people resist their oppression. In addition he expresses his personal belief in the human decency of all Americans. He weaves in past world history as examples to his projected

Dr.King knew that non-violent protesting of these discriminations and unjust laws was the only way to bring about change without causing a war between white and black people. Dr.King provides the example that some laws were created without any input from the race being discriminated upon because these races had not been allowed to vote. The black people had to go through more rigorous screening to vote than white people causing whole counties to not have any black registered voters. Dr.King tried to make his argument more clear by drawing similarities

In 1954, with Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court struck down the “separate but equal” doctrine, legally (but not practically) ending segregation. Buses, schools, theaters… they were to be desegregated, but the fight wasn’t over. African Americans, under the leadership of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., utilized nonviolent means and civil disobedience to protest their unequal treatment. In his “Letter From a Birmingham Jail” and “I Have a Dream” speech, Dr. King inspired citizens to stand up and fight for equality. From a jail cell in Birmingham, he famously wrote: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one

He believed that men and women everywhere, regardless of colour or faith, are equal members of society. Through this belief, he used religion and philosophy to bring attention to the necessity of ending discrimination in not only a peaceful manner, but also without denying, abusing, or violating the civil rights of (anyone/the American people?). The main principles of King’s philosophy of non-violence had been tested frequently and intensely, yet he remained adamant on their application. In his ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail,’ Dr. King described the need for civil disobedience as inevitable, saying that eventually the “pent-up resentments and latent frustrations” (Birmingham Letter) of African Americans would come to the surface; however, instead of these (emotions?) resulting in outbursts of violence and (animosity), King urged for them to be expressed in the way of marches and sit-ins, to demonstrate with as much peacefulness as there was passion. Using these methods produced a type of tension which he explained as “…a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth” (Birmingham

Russell does not want people to be too comfortable with their lives or their belief systems. He believed that by constantly questioning your own beliefs and opinions, you grow and can develop a more critical way of thinking. After all, doubt is the challenger of certainty. People and people’s ideas need to be challenged. If what is said is just assumed to be certain and no one challenges our way of thinking, we would not grow and develop new ideas.

Gettier argues that this is an instance when despite having Justified True Belief, Smith does not have knowledge because he could not have really known that Brown was in Barcelona. The Gettier Problem raised concerns that appeared to make it difficult to have any justified knowledge, but I will argue that the No Essential False Lemmas creates a set of outlines for knowledge that avoids the pitfall of Justified True Belief. No Essential False Lemmas eliminates the possibility that Smith’s proposition can be counted as knowledge because it is false that Jones owns a Ford, which is the only part of the proposition that Smith has support for, despite it being true that Brown is in Barcelona. It is also merely accidental that Brown is in Barcelona, which also prevents this proposition from being knowledge.

Bertrand Russell discussed certain problems he found with philosophy. Russell was concerned about how much did we really know. There is the stuff we know with our mind when we have a particular idea, and stuff we know through actually experiencing it which would justify it. But how do we know if it is real, or even there, for that matter? Russell says, “For if we cannot be sure of the independent existence of object, we cannot be sure of the independent existence of other people’s bodies, and therefore still less of other peoples minds, since we have no grounds for believing in their minds except such as are derived from observing their bodies” (Russell, 47). How can Farmer Brown be sure that the dairyman just didn’t have an idea

Russell was a leader in the revival of the philosophy of empiricism in the large field of epistemology. He wrote Our Knowledge of the External World (1914), The Analysis of Matter (1927) and Human Knowledge, Its Scope and Limits (1948). He also wrote Principles of mathematics (1903), Principia Mathematica (with A.N. Whitehead; three volumes, 1910 – 1913), and Introduction to mathematical Philosophy (1919).

This essay looks to discuss Wittgenstein’s response to Russell’s worries about inductive reasoning. According to Russell, inductive beliefs cannot be justified, as to justify them we need to know that the past is indicative of the future, which we cannot know since the future has not occurred yet. Thus, he holds that we cannot justify inductive beliefs. First the essay discusses how we ordinarily claim that induction to be unjustified. Conclusions drawn from this are then used by Wittgenstein to alleviate Russell’s problem. The essay then finds that Russell’s problem comes from him confusing the definitions of knowledge and justified beliefs. Finally, the paper looks to see if Wittgenstein’s response was successful and concludes that it is.