3 ms·

Bertrand Russell: A history of western philosophy. I haven't read it all but what I've read was both informative and witty. Note that Russell, kind of similar

by HSO 16y ago

Bertrand Russell: A history of western philosophy. I haven't read it all but what I've read was both informative and witty. Note that Russell, kind of similar to The Economist, is "opinionated". Must be that British style...

aerique 16y ago
While I like the book (and Russel in general) it really is a history rather than a philosophical book.
- mahmud 16y ago
  But someone like OP would benefit from a broad introduction to the corpus of thought out there. They can then choose which lines to follow.
mahmud 16y ago
I read it cover to cover and loved it. But Russel, although a humanist, is firmly an occidental man. He rushes through Oriental philosophy like it's a bad neighborhood (he really didn't hide his distaste for mysticism and metaphysics at all.) A better read might be Will Durant's "The Story of Philosophy". And Durant's masterpiece, The Story of Civilization is unparalleled in its scope and lucidity, though not philosophy. I have such a huge attachment to the Durants, they kept me company on many a long night. I read about seven or eight of their dozen volumes.
- wheels 16y ago
  Well, it is a history of western philosophy. Also, I wouldn't say that Russell has a distaste for mysticism; my read of many of his writings on religion (A Free Man's Worship, Mysticism and Logic, etc.) would be that he genuinely sees the value of mysticism and transcendental experience – though I'm going on memory from reading about a decade ago. Durant's writing is great too, but The Story of Philsophy doesn't have the depth of The History of Western Philosophy, and, I actually enjoy Russell's snark along the way.
  - mahmud 16y ago
    The book might be strictly Western in its coverage, but my opinion on his approach to Oriental thought is extrapolated, and is the sum of everything I have read of the man. I say this as someone who first discovered Russell as a logician. Regarding his mysticism, Whitehead must have passed some of it on, but in the History, he is nothing but a rational materialist. You see this in his treatment of Plato and Platonism vis-a-vis, say, Aristotle. Where others saw Plato's Ideal as a pure goal or experience, obtained only through sheer effort or total transformation, as evidenced by the various religious groups who synthesized platonic ideals with mystical beliefs. Russell saw something a bit more proscriptive, imo. Allegory is open to interpretation, and I think Russell approached Plato as a fellow Cambridge gentleman, and not, say, a troubled mind searching for answers in a world with much less science, and is forced to defer more to the unknown, the perfect place with all the answers .. where we could go, if only we were perfect ourselves. Plato's obsession with the Ideal, order, wisdom the perfect society, etc. is a cry for help; he is desperately seeking full understanding of his world and is unable to. Only if he could change himself and his society would the world change to something more tangible! Russell missed that part and projects his own image on Plato; the fully informed intellectual royal whose words are heeded by society. He thought Plato enjoyed a similar luxury, and his calls for perfection, specially in the Republic, were made out of snobbery. This is my personal take on it, and I am excited to take a second stab at the History.
intellectronica 16y ago
I second that recommendation. You won't get a lot of philosophy out of it, but you'll get thousands of pointers of where to look for the interesting stuff, put it context.
wheels 16y ago
I don't think it's the best place to get started. I've read it cover to cover and it's great background for further reading in philosophy, but it's a dry start. Russell's Unpopular Essays is a good deal more fun to read. Other things I'd recommend for wading into the waters of philosophy would be Utopia by Sir Thomas More, or Meditations on First Philosophy by René Descartes.

by HSO 16y ago

aerique 16y ago

While I like the book (and Russel in general) it really is a history rather than a philosophical book.

mahmud 16y ago
But someone like OP would benefit from a broad introduction to the corpus of thought out there. They can then choose which lines to follow.

mahmud 16y ago

I read it cover to cover and loved it. But Russel, although a humanist, is firmly an occidental man. He rushes through Oriental philosophy like it's a bad neighborhood (he really didn't hide his distaste for mysticism and metaphysics at all.) A better read might be Will Durant's "The Story of Philosophy". And Durant's masterpiece, The Story of Civilization is unparalleled in its scope and lucidity, though not philosophy. I have such a huge attachment to the Durants, they kept me company on many a long night. I read about seven or eight of their dozen volumes.

wheels 16y ago
Well, it is a history of western philosophy. Also, I wouldn't say that Russell has a distaste for mysticism; my read of many of his writings on religion (A Free Man's Worship, Mysticism and Logic, etc.) would be that he genuinely sees the value of mysticism and transcendental experience – though I'm going on memory from reading about a decade ago. Durant's writing is great too, but The Story of Philsophy doesn't have the depth of The History of Western Philosophy, and, I actually enjoy Russell's snark along the way.
- mahmud 16y ago
  The book might be strictly Western in its coverage, but my opinion on his approach to Oriental thought is extrapolated, and is the sum of everything I have read of the man. I say this as someone who first discovered Russell as a logician. Regarding his mysticism, Whitehead must have passed some of it on, but in the History, he is nothing but a rational materialist. You see this in his treatment of Plato and Platonism vis-a-vis, say, Aristotle. Where others saw Plato's Ideal as a pure goal or experience, obtained only through sheer effort or total transformation, as evidenced by the various religious groups who synthesized platonic ideals with mystical beliefs. Russell saw something a bit more proscriptive, imo. Allegory is open to interpretation, and I think Russell approached Plato as a fellow Cambridge gentleman, and not, say, a troubled mind searching for answers in a world with much less science, and is forced to defer more to the unknown, the perfect place with all the answers .. where we could go, if only we were perfect ourselves. Plato's obsession with the Ideal, order, wisdom the perfect society, etc. is a cry for help; he is desperately seeking full understanding of his world and is unable to. Only if he could change himself and his society would the world change to something more tangible! Russell missed that part and projects his own image on Plato; the fully informed intellectual royal whose words are heeded by society. He thought Plato enjoyed a similar luxury, and his calls for perfection, specially in the Republic, were made out of snobbery. This is my personal take on it, and I am excited to take a second stab at the History.

intellectronica 16y ago

I second that recommendation. You won't get a lot of philosophy out of it, but you'll get thousands of pointers of where to look for the interesting stuff, put it context.

wheels 16y ago

I don't think it's the best place to get started. I've read it cover to cover and it's great background for further reading in philosophy, but it's a dry start. Russell's Unpopular Essays is a good deal more fun to read. Other things I'd recommend for wading into the waters of philosophy would be Utopia by Sir Thomas More, or Meditations on First Philosophy by René Descartes.