翻译是选自罗素的《哲学问题》的第十五章——“哲学的价值”，英文如下：
what is the value of philosophy and why it ought to be studied. It is the more necessary to consider this question, in view of the fact that many men, under the influence of science or of practical affairs, are inclined to doubt whether philosophy is anything better than innocent but useless trifling, hair-splitting distinctions, and controversies on matters concerning which knowledge is impossible.
This view of philosophy appears to result, partly from a wrong conception of the ends of life, partly from a wrong conception of the kind of goods which philosophy strives to achieve. Physical science, through the medium of inventions, is useful to innumerable people who are wholly ignorant of it; thus the study of physical science is to be recommended, not only, or primarily, because of the effect on the student, but rather because of the effect on mankind in general. Thus utility does not belong to philosophy. If the study of philosophy has any value at all for others than students of philosophy, it must be only indirectly, through its effects upon the lives of those who study it. It is in these effects, therefore, if anywhere, that the value of philosophy must be primarily sought.
But further, if we are not to fail in our endeavour to determine the value of philosophy, we must first free our minds from the prejudices of what are wrongly called’practical’ men. The’practical’ man, as this word is often used, is one who recognizes only material needs, who realizes that men must have food for the body, but is oblivious of the necessity of providing food for the mind. If all men were well off, if poverty and disease had been reduced to their lowest possible point, there would still remain much to be done to produce a valuable society; and even in the existing world the goods of the mind are at least as important as the goods of the body. It is exclusively among the goods of the mind that the value of philosophy is to be found; and only those who are not indifferent to these goods can be persuaded that the study of philosophy is not a waste of time.
Philosophy, like all other studies, aims primarily at knowledge. The knowledge it aims at is the kind of knowledge which gives unity and system to the body of the sciences, and the kind which results from a critical examination of the grounds of our convictions, prejudices, and beliefs. But it cannot be maintained that philosophy has had any very great measure of success in its attempts to provide definite answers to its questions. If you ask a mathematician, a mineralogist, a historian, or any other man of learning, what definite body of truths has been ascertained by his science, his answer will last as long as you are willing to listen. But if you put the same question to a philosopher, he will, if he is candid, have to confess that his study has not achieved positive results such as have been achieved by other sciences. It is true that this is partly accounted for by the fact that, as soon as definite knowledge concerning any subject becomes possible, this subject ceases to be called philosophy, and becomes a separate science. The whole study of the heavens, which now belongs to astronomy, was once included in philosophy; Newton’s great work was called’the mathematical principles of natural philosophy’. Similarly, the study of the human mind, which was a part of philosophy, has now been separated from philosophy and has become the science of psychology. Thus, to a great extent, the uncertainty of philosophy is more apparent than real: those questions which are already capable of definite answers are placed in the sciences, while those only to which, at present, no definite answer can be given, remain to form the residue which is called philosophy.
This is, however, only a part of the truth concerning the uncertainty of philosophy. There are many questions — and among them those that are of the profoundest interest to our spiritual life — which, so far as we can see, must remain insoluble to the human intellect unless its powers become of quite a different order from what they are now. Has the universe any unity of plan or purpose, or is it a fortuitous concourse of atoms? Is consciousness a permanent part of the universe, giving hope of indefinite growth in wisdom, or is it a transitory accident on a small planet on which life must ultimately become impossible? Are good and evil of importance to the universe or only to man? Such questions are asked by philosophy, and variously answered by various philosophers. But it would seem that, whether answers be otherwise discoverable or not, the answers suggested by philosophy are none of them demonstrably true. Yet, however slight may be the hope of discovering an answer, it is part of the business of philosophy to continue the consideration of such questions, to make us aware of their importance, to examine all the approaches to them, and to keep alive that speculative interest in the universe which is apt to be killed by confining ourselves to definitely ascertainable knowledge.
Many philosophers, it is true, have held that philosophy could establish the truth of certain answers to such fundamental questions. They have supposed that what is of most importance in religious beliefs could be proved by strict demonstration to be true. In order to judge of such attempts, it is necessary to take a survey of human knowledge, and to form an opinion as to its methods and its limitations. On such a subject it would be unwise to pronounce dogmatically; but if the investigations of our previous chapters have not led us astray, we shall be compelled to renounce the hope of finding philosophical proofs of religious beliefs. We cannot, therefore, include as part of the value of philosophy any definite set of answers to such questions. Hence, once more, the value of philosophy must not depend upon any supposed body of definitely ascertainable knowledge to be acquired by those who study it.
The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected. As soon as we begin to philosophize, on the contrary, we find, as we saw in our opening chapters, that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given. Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never travelled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect.
译文如下：
哲学的价值是什么？为什么应当研究哲学？在科学和实际事务的影响之下，许多人都倾向于怀疑：比起不关利害又毫无足取的辨析毫芒，比起在知识所不能达到的问题上进行论战，哲学比起它们来又能强多少？所以，现在就更需要考虑这个问题了。
对于哲学所以出现了这种看法，一部分是由于在人生的目的上有一种错误的看法，一部分也由于对哲学所争取达到的东西没有一个正确的概念。现在，物理科学
上的发明创造使无数不认识这门学问的人已经认为物理科学是有用的东西了；因此，现在所以要推荐研究物理科学，与其说根本原因在于它对学生的影响，不如说在于它对整个人类的影响。这种实用性是哲学所没有的。除了对于哲学学者之外，如果研究哲学对别人也有价值的话，那也必然只是通过对于学习哲学的人的生活所起的影响而间接地在发生作用。因此，哲学的价值根本就必须求之于这些影响。
但是，更进一步说，倘使我们想要使评定哲学的价值的企图不致失败，那么我们首先必须在思想上摆脱掉“现实”的人的偏见。“现实”的人，照这个词的通常用法，是指只承认物质需要的人，只晓得人体需要食粮，却忽略了为心灵提供食粮的必要性。即使人人都是经济充裕的，即使贫困和疾病已经减少到不能再小的程度，为了创造一个有价值的社会，还是会有很多事情要做的；即使是在目前的社会之中，心灵所需要的东西至少也是和肉体所需要的东西同样重要。只有在心灵的食粮中才能够找到哲学的价值；也只有不漠视心灵食粮的人，才相信研究哲学并不是白白浪费时间。
哲学和别的学科一样，其目的首先是要获得知识。哲学所追求的是可以提供一套科学统一体系的知识，和由于批判我们的成见、偏见和信仰的基础而得来的知识。但是我们却不能够认为它对于它的问题提供确定的答案时，会有极高度的成就。倘使你问一位数学家、一位矿物学家、一位历史学家或者任何一门的博学之士，在他那门科学里所肯定的一套真理是什么，他的答案会长得让你听得厌烦为止。但是，倘使你把这个问题拿来问一位哲学家的话，如果他的态度是坦率的，他一定承认他的研究还没有能获得像别种科学所达到的那样肯定的结果。当然，下述的事实可以部分地说明这种情况：任何一门科学，只要关于它的知识一旦可能确定，这门科学便不再称为哲学，而变成为一门独立的科学了。关于天体的全部研究现在属于天文学，但是过去曾包含在哲学之内；牛顿的伟大著作就叫作《自然哲学之数学原理》。同样，研究人类心理的学问，直到晚近为止还是哲学的一部分，但是现在已经脱离哲学而变成为心理学。因此，哲学的不确定性在很大程度上不但是真实的，而且还是明显的：有了确定答案的问题，都已经放到各种科学里面去了；而现在还提不出确定答案的问题，便仍构成为叫作哲学的这门学问的残存部分。
然而，关于哲学的不确定性，这一点还只是部分的真理。有许多问题——其中那些和我们心灵生活最有深切关系的——就我们所知，乃是人类才智所始终不能解决的，除非人类的才智变得和现在完全不同了。宇宙是否有一个统一的计划或目的呢？抑或宇宙仅仅是许多原子的一种偶然的集合呢？意识是不是宇宙中的一个永恒不变的部分，它使得智慧有着无限扩充的希望呢？抑或它只是一颗小行星上一桩昙花一现的偶然事件，在这颗行星上，最后连生命也要归于消灭呢？善和恶对于宇宙是否重要呢？或者它们只有对于人类才是重要的呢？这些问题都是哲学所设问的，不同的哲学家有不同的答案。但是，木论答案是否可以用别的方法找出来，看来哲学所提出来的答案并不是可以用实验来证明其真确性的。然而，不论找出一个答案的希望是如何地微乎其微，哲学的一部分责任就是要继续研究这类问题，使我们觉察到它们的重要性，研究解决它们的门径，并保持对于宇宙的思考兴趣，使之蓬勃不衰，而如果我们局限于可明确地肯定的知识范围之内，这种兴趣是很易被扼杀的。
不错，许多哲学家都曾抱有这种见解，认为对于上述那些基本问题的某些答案，哲学可以确定它们的真假。他们认为宗教信仰中最重要的部分是可以用严谨的验证证明其为真确的。要判断这些想法，就必须通盘考虑一下人类的知识，对于它的方法和范围就必须形成一种见解。对于这样一个问题，独断是不明智的；但是前几章的研究如果没有把我们引入歧途的话，我们便不得不放弃为宗教信仰寻找哲学证据的希望了。因此，对于这些问题的任何一套确定的答案，我们都不能容纳其成为哲学的价值的一部分。因此，我们要再一次说明，哲学的价值必然不在于哲学研究者可以获得任何一套可明确肯定的知识的假设体系。
事实上，哲学的价值大部分须在它的极其不确定性之中去追求。没有哲学色彩的人一生总免不了受束缚于种种偏见，由常识、由他那个时代或民族的习见、由末经深思熟虑而滋长的自信等等所形成的偏见。对于这样的人，世界是固定的、有穷的、一目了然的；普通的客体引不起他的疑问，可能发生的未知事物他会傲慢地否定。但是反之，正如在开头几章中我们所已明了的，只要我们一开始采取哲学的态度，我们就会发觉，连最平常的事情也有问题，而我们能提供的答案又只能是极不完善的。哲学虽然对于所提出的疑问，不能肯定告诉我们哪个答案对，但却能扩展我们的思想境界，使我们摆脱习俗的控制。因此，哲学虽然对于例如事物是什么这个问题减轻了我们可以肯定的感觉，但却大大增长了我们对于事物可能是什么这个问题的知识。它把从未进入过自由怀疑的境地的人们的狂妄独断的说法排除掉了，并且指出所熟悉的事物中那不熟悉的一面，使我们的好奇感永远保持着敏锐状态。
你研究过了啊，牛的。我都不关心这个了。