3 ms·
As someone who took a few university courses on analytic philosophy covering Russell, I've never heard anyone suggest he "sold out". Maybe that's just people wh
by anaphor 7y ago
As someone who took a few university courses on analytic philosophy covering Russell, I've never heard anyone suggest he "sold out". Maybe that's just people who aren't really familiar with Russell or his personal life that say that?
If you're going to argue that he wrote sellout books, then he did that long before he gave up on logicism. See for example Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy, which is aimed at people who know nothing above regular public school math.
I think the ability to recognize that he had basically hit a dead end with logicism was probably his greatest success, instead of falling prey to a sunk-cost fallacy. The guy wrote one of the most influential papers in philosophy of the 20th century ("On Denoting"), as well as being one of the central figures in the founding of an entire field of study, but he knew when to call it quits, and I doubt he regretted it at all. His social and political writings and activism are a treasure trove of wisdom IMHO.
Edit: if I'm being fair though, it is pretty common for people to say History of Western Philosophy was a bit of a poor work that he did just because it would sell well. That is just one book out of hundreds of works though, and honestly it's not that bad if you balance it with more neutral sources on some of the material.
- ChrisSD 7y agoI don't think History of Western Philosophy is bad but it is opinionated. If someone were expecting either a dispassionate overview or heartfelt enthusiasm for all philosophers past I can see how they'd come away disappointed. Especially when he's particularly dismissive. If you go in expecting Russell's view of Western philosophy through the ages then you'll get just that.
- fanzhang 7y agoI thought Russell's History of Western Philosophy was interesting precisely because it gave Russell's personal view on all the philosophers. (This is just like Kenneth Clark's Civilisation.) There are already dozens of dry textbooks out there, whereas Russell was uniquely positioned to write an entertaining opinion piece on the topic.
- ubermon 7y agoNot to mention he is good at writing and it is a very interesting read
- mellosouls 7y agoHistory is a terrific book. Whatever its flaws, it's a great read, and often very witty. Wasn't it based on lectures?
- shantly 7y agoSince he’s up-front that he’s gonna be including opinion, and about his own limitations when it comes to presenting certain philosophies (IIRC for Bergson he was like “look I can’t figure out a way to explain this that doesn’t seem like total bullshit, but I’ll try”) I don’t really get the complaints about the book. I think it’s great. Why would you want Bertrand Russell to write such a book and not provide his analyses? It’s better that way! There are plenty of similar works by people mainly known for writing their histories of philosophy. Go for those if you want a just-the-facts version.
- logjammin 7y agoAgreed. I'm much more comfortable with "this is my take on this subject, and here's how I'm a bit biased, but I'll try anyway to be as objective as I can as well" than "this is the way things are"-style proclamations.
- laichzeit0 7y agoThe chapter on Hegel's philosophy is worth the weight of the book itself.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Angostura 7y agoRead it main years ago and found it both enlightening and a good read. There were parts whre he was clearly struggling to understand the work of particular philosophers, but he had no secret of the fact in the book. It was interesting to a great mind grappling to understand the work of another. Parts made me chuckle, too.