4 ms·

Since many other people have mentioned ancient essays I like, I'll go for something more "modern". Some of Bertrand Russell's earlier works are well worth a rea

Since many other people have mentioned ancient essays I like, I'll go for something more "modern". Some of Bertrand Russell's earlier works are well worth a read even though they're obviously dated. * The Problems of Philosophy (1912) gives a short introduction to philosophy that he at the time considered "positive and constructive". https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5827/5827-h/5827-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5827/5827-h/5827-h.htm * Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays (1901 to 1915) is an anthology of his ideas that were still evolving even then. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/25447/25447-h/25447-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/25447/25447-h/25447-h.htm

lostlogin 7y ago
Something that’s always fascinated me - Bertrand Russell’s life covered many years and massive change, making for a good biography. His grandfather met Napoleon when in exile and I believe recounted this experience to a young Bertrand Russell (I can’t find a source for this currently). Bertrand Russell also watched the moon landing on TV. These events seem so far apart but are separated by just 2 (long) lifetimes.
- eesmith 7y ago
  There are people alive today with a grandparent born in the 1700s - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/heir-raising-experience/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/heir-raising-experience/ (at least true up to a few years ago).
wazoox 7y ago
His History of Western Philosophy is really great, too.
- ChrisSD 7y ago
  Oh definitely! But I'd be stretching the "100 years ago" limitation if I included it.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  That book has a large number of criticisms for its (in the opinions of the views it criticizes) misguided polemics; if it's worth reading, it's also worth reading its criticisms.
  - ChrisSD 7y ago
    In philosophy this is the rule not the exception. And reading the sources is also valuable, as he himself pointed out. Especially now that we have the web so you don't even need to visit a well stocked library to see how accurately he represents a philosopher's writings (his views on those views not withstanding).
    - claudiawerner 7y ago
      Sure, I agree, but there are different standards for books which claim to expose a history than there are for books which are replies and polemics to other points of view. A history book shouldn't be the place to argue a point of view, and if it is, it shouldn't be so blatant as to be sourced as one of the main places where Russell does make his polemics. I don't intend to get into a discussion about how everything written carries with it a point of view and bias, but with a book like that, you can come away with the impression you have an accurate picture of Western philosophy when really you've just got one philosopher's view, and from a book written by someone with such esteem as Russell you come out parroting objections to Hegelianism that were refuted sixty years ago. And for the record, I wouldn't recommend Hegel's History of Philosophy lectures for the same reason.

lostlogin 7y ago

Something that’s always fascinated me - Bertrand Russell’s life covered many years and massive change, making for a good biography. His grandfather met Napoleon when in exile and I believe recounted this experience to a young Bertrand Russell (I can’t find a source for this currently). Bertrand Russell also watched the moon landing on TV. These events seem so far apart but are separated by just 2 (long) lifetimes.

eesmith 7y ago
There are people alive today with a grandparent born in the 1700s - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/heir-raising-experience/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/heir-raising-experience/ (at least true up to a few years ago).

wazoox 7y ago

His History of Western Philosophy is really great, too.

ChrisSD 7y ago
Oh definitely! But I'd be stretching the "100 years ago" limitation if I included it.
claudiawerner 7y ago
That book has a large number of criticisms for its (in the opinions of the views it criticizes) misguided polemics; if it's worth reading, it's also worth reading its criticisms.
- ChrisSD 7y ago
  In philosophy this is the rule not the exception. And reading the sources is also valuable, as he himself pointed out. Especially now that we have the web so you don't even need to visit a well stocked library to see how accurately he represents a philosopher's writings (his views on those views not withstanding).
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    Sure, I agree, but there are different standards for books which claim to expose a history than there are for books which are replies and polemics to other points of view. A history book shouldn't be the place to argue a point of view, and if it is, it shouldn't be so blatant as to be sourced as one of the main places where Russell does make his polemics. I don't intend to get into a discussion about how everything written carries with it a point of view and bias, but with a book like that, you can come away with the impression you have an accurate picture of Western philosophy when really you've just got one philosopher's view, and from a book written by someone with such esteem as Russell you come out parroting objections to Hegelianism that were refuted sixty years ago. And for the record, I wouldn't recommend Hegel's History of Philosophy lectures for the same reason.