3 ms·
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 yo
by 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 agoSure, 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.