3 ms·

For those interested in a grand overview of history of philosophy (the ideas themselves and the people behind them), this is a worth-reading classic: A History

by yboris 7y ago

For those interested in a grand overview of history of philosophy (the ideas themselves and the people behind them), this is a worth-reading classic: A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Western_Philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Western_Philosoph...

pmoriarty 7y ago
Just bear in mind that Russell was very biased in favor of Analytic philosophy, so you're not going to get much from him on the Continentals. Like many other Analytics, he seriously misreads Nietzsche, and he doesn't even mention Heidegger, Husserl, Sartre, or Foucault. I like Russell, though. He's clear and eloquent, writing well on the subjects he does appreciate and understand.
- karatestomp 7y ago
  Russell is up front about his biases and limitations in that book, at least. IIRC he divides most chapters into his best effort to describe a philosopher or movement's positions or ideas, then an analysis of how those have held up since (this is incredibly helpful and absent in a lot of texts that try to be dryly objective and not even report any more-or-less consensus passing-of-judgement by philosophy as a field) and, to varying extents, his own takes on them. The funniest one I recall is Bergson, near the end of the book, which he prefaces with (loosely paraphrasing) "Look, this whole thing seems like total bullshit to me, and I've never read any description of it that doesn't seem like total bullshit, so when I try to describe it and it seems like bullshit that's just the best I can do. Sorry."
  - pmoriarty 7y ago
    Yeah, that dismissive, condescending view of Bergson is par for the course of many Analytic's attitudes towards Continentals (though Bergson himself was not part of the Continental tradition). Sure, such condescension may be the best that Russell can muster, but I'm not sure you'd get a charitable reading of Bergson (or any other philosopher Russell didn't like) from someone so hostile and unappreciative of him. Russell did take Nietzsche more seriously, but to me it seems Nietzsche just went over Russell's head. Russell is best at reading other philosophers who, like himself, are clear, easy to understand, and relatively conventional.
    - yboris 7y ago
      Continental philosophers were approaching the topic of philosophy very differently. Much of it comes off as convoluted nonsense: rather than clarity of expression it feels like mysticism for which you need a 'guru' to elaborate and elucidate. To take existentialism, the basic message is "you have to decide and take control of your life". Sure, that sounds good, but what is the advice about how to do it? Existentialism seems to offer no guide.
- joflicu 7y ago
  May I suggest a more equanimous modern re-telling of Western philosophy that I have currently started reading: A New History of Western Philosophy by Kenny https://www.amazon.com/New-History-Western-Philosophy-ebook/dp/B00ARGXJM8/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=kenny+philosophy&qid=1587751066&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.com/New-History-Western-Philosophy-ebook/...
- yesenadam 7y ago
  > he doesn't even mention ... Foucault. It was written during WWII, before Foucault had published anything. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have been a fan, though.
BuddyKallipygos 7y ago
I was surprised by how many times I laughed out loud while reading Russell's HoWP - his wit really showed through while giving a great philosophy primer. I also enjoyed the audiobook and found that the narrator nailed the dry wit and did credit to the writing.

by yboris 7y ago

pmoriarty 7y ago

Just bear in mind that Russell was very biased in favor of Analytic philosophy, so you're not going to get much from him on the Continentals. Like many other Analytics, he seriously misreads Nietzsche, and he doesn't even mention Heidegger, Husserl, Sartre, or Foucault. I like Russell, though. He's clear and eloquent, writing well on the subjects he does appreciate and understand.

karatestomp 7y ago
Russell is up front about his biases and limitations in that book, at least. IIRC he divides most chapters into his best effort to describe a philosopher or movement's positions or ideas, then an analysis of how those have held up since (this is incredibly helpful and absent in a lot of texts that try to be dryly objective and not even report any more-or-less consensus passing-of-judgement by philosophy as a field) and, to varying extents, his own takes on them. The funniest one I recall is Bergson, near the end of the book, which he prefaces with (loosely paraphrasing) "Look, this whole thing seems like total bullshit to me, and I've never read any description of it that doesn't seem like total bullshit, so when I try to describe it and it seems like bullshit that's just the best I can do. Sorry."
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  Yeah, that dismissive, condescending view of Bergson is par for the course of many Analytic's attitudes towards Continentals (though Bergson himself was not part of the Continental tradition). Sure, such condescension may be the best that Russell can muster, but I'm not sure you'd get a charitable reading of Bergson (or any other philosopher Russell didn't like) from someone so hostile and unappreciative of him. Russell did take Nietzsche more seriously, but to me it seems Nietzsche just went over Russell's head. Russell is best at reading other philosophers who, like himself, are clear, easy to understand, and relatively conventional.
  - yboris 7y ago
    Continental philosophers were approaching the topic of philosophy very differently. Much of it comes off as convoluted nonsense: rather than clarity of expression it feels like mysticism for which you need a 'guru' to elaborate and elucidate. To take existentialism, the basic message is "you have to decide and take control of your life". Sure, that sounds good, but what is the advice about how to do it? Existentialism seems to offer no guide.
joflicu 7y ago
May I suggest a more equanimous modern re-telling of Western philosophy that I have currently started reading: A New History of Western Philosophy by Kenny https://www.amazon.com/New-History-Western-Philosophy-ebook/dp/B00ARGXJM8/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=kenny+philosophy&qid=1587751066&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.com/New-History-Western-Philosophy-ebook/...
yesenadam 7y ago
> he doesn't even mention ... Foucault. It was written during WWII, before Foucault had published anything. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have been a fan, though.

BuddyKallipygos 7y ago

I was surprised by how many times I laughed out loud while reading Russell's HoWP - his wit really showed through while giving a great philosophy primer. I also enjoyed the audiobook and found that the narrator nailed the dry wit and did credit to the writing.