This is an interesting perspective, because in his book, "The History of Western Philosophy" recommended elsewhere in this thread, Bertrand Russell makes this o

This is an interesting perspective, because in his book, "The History of Western Philosophy" recommended elsewhere in this thread, Bertrand Russell makes this one of the metrics by which he rates historical philosophers. For example, he rates Schopenhauer: > He habitually dined well, at a good restaurant; he had many trivial love-affairs, which were sensual but not passionate; he was exceedingly quarrelsome and unusually avaricious. ... It is hard to find in his life evidences of an virtue except kindness to animals ... In all other respects he was completely selfish. It is difficult to believe that a man who was profoundly convinced of the virtue of asceticism and resignation would never have made any attempt to embody his convictions in his practice.