3 ms·

I'm going to be the lone naysayer here, and recommend against Russell's book. Russell is an eloquent, entertaining, and engaging writer. I used to be a huge R

I'm going to be the lone naysayer here, and recommend against Russell's book. Russell is an eloquent, entertaining, and engaging writer. I used to be a huge Russell fan myself when I was young, and back then I would have recommended his book too. But then I actually studied philosophy and realized how myopic, limited, and biased Russell was outside his areas of specialty (Analytic philosophy, math, and logic). Yes, you'd get an overview of (some of) Western philosophy from his book, but it'd be really biased, and that's the wrong foot to start you learning of philosophy from. Much better, in my view, to just start reading the Socratic dialogues yourself, as part of an intro to philosophy class, instead of being fed regurgitated, abridged, predigested knowledge by someone with an agenda. My view on Russell extends to many of the other recommendations elsewhere in this thread of books by other authors who've written overviews of philosophy from an Analytic perspective. They might have more up-to-date views than Russell did (who was born in 1872 and wrote his book in 1946), but they tend to share his limitations.

libraryofbabel 6y ago
Not the lone naysayer! I’m still a huge Russell fan, but my advice on his History of Western Philosophy is avoid like the plague until you know enough to read it with a very critical eye. I think the real danger is that he’s such a pleasant, engaging, clear, logically compelling writer. And especially so to folks of a mathematical, analytical bent - like probably most HN readers. And then you remember that this book was written by an Englishman in 1946. You know, right after the worst war in the history of the world, in which Germany was the central antagonist. Of course he’s going to totally misinterpret Hegel, Nietzsche, and a whole bunch of other thinkers.
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  I'm still a huge Russell fan myself, but more for his political activism and style of popular writing than for his philosophy. I've found his actual philosophical writing pretty impenetrable. Have you ever read On Denoting? For me that was every bit as hard to understand as the most difficult of Continental writings.

libraryofbabel 6y ago

Not the lone naysayer! I’m still a huge Russell fan, but my advice on his History of Western Philosophy is avoid like the plague until you know enough to read it with a very critical eye. I think the real danger is that he’s such a pleasant, engaging, clear, logically compelling writer. And especially so to folks of a mathematical, analytical bent - like probably most HN readers. And then you remember that this book was written by an Englishman in 1946. You know, right after the worst war in the history of the world, in which Germany was the central antagonist. Of course he’s going to totally misinterpret Hegel, Nietzsche, and a whole bunch of other thinkers.

pmoriarty 6y ago
I'm still a huge Russell fan myself, but more for his political activism and style of popular writing than for his philosophy. I've found his actual philosophical writing pretty impenetrable. Have you ever read On Denoting? For me that was every bit as hard to understand as the most difficult of Continental writings.