The table as a symbol for reality
Russell glances around his room for a symbol that could represent his ineffable questions about reality, and he picks a table. This symbol is good, because it also suggests stability and presupposition, because a table literally symbolizes credence. Not only are there literal details to explore about the table's reality, as in its chemical and particular makeup, but also it implies metaphysical reality and the human belief in reality, because he is talking about a literal table that really exists (or does it?)
Data as the alternative to knowledge
Russell describes knowledge this way: after a lengthy series of foundation-less assumptions, one could get to the point where they learn only from what other people do and say. Russell says that this data-consuming attempt at knowledge is essentially like tool usage, but data alone doesn't have any true insight into the real puzzles of human experience, so he portrays these kinds of intelligence as essentially separate.
Instinct and intuition
Russell depicts intuition as a high force in human consciousness, and he expresses his tendency to scrutinize everything with the full weight of his skeptical intuition. He is asking, "Why would they want their beliefs to be true? What would they gain?" In a few words, he feels intuition is the same as animal survival instincts, and he views blind acceptance of reality as a kind of foolish defense mechanism.
The effort of philosophy as a body
Russell establishes himself as a competent voice by referring to the oeuvre of philosophy, or the body of all philosophical thought, showing that he understands the ideas of Plato, Aristotle, and a whole host of modernist voices and voices of skepticism. He strikes his own note in that greater chord of philosophical skepticism, a tradition that goes all the way back to the Greeks who were simply baffled by the paradoxical nature of reality.
Skepticism as heroism
Russell portrays the efforts of intellectual honesty as a high form of heroism, and he paints himself as a vigilante by denying assumptions that are commonly held. His purpose is to embolden the reader into questioning their assumptions. He is implying a narrative structure, because he argues for deconstruction of beliefs, and he also argues for intelligent voices to disagree with with their communities on their most fundamental beliefs. Such behavior is tragically connected to martyrdom. His argument seems to imply that philosophical heroes are those who are martyred for their truths by the blind majority who resent change.
