4 ms·

I'll look through this (the Internet Archive's full version that fero14041 mentioned) but Bertrand Russell's ''History of Western Philosophy'' has always been a

I'll look through this (the Internet Archive's full version that fero14041 mentioned) but Bertrand Russell's ''History of Western Philosophy'' has always been a personal favourite overview, covering this same topic and continuing to the late 19th century's major philosophers.

swatcoder 4y ago
Nietszche was also a philologist first and foremost and wrote extensively on the topic, albeit in his own irascible style rather than the dry and paternal register of Russell and similar. Which is no accident in either case, as their rhetorical and philosophical heritage trace precisely to the pre-Socratic and Socratic traditions that they identify with.
davidhay 4y ago
+1 for "History of Western Philosophy".
hodgesrm 4y ago
Bertrand Russell is great. He's an outstanding philosopher in his own right and thus equipped to be a great interpreter of others. If you tire of that there are always his tart opinions on philosophers like Nietzche.
- Amezarak 4y ago
  Russell's opinions of Nietzsche border on libel. I had a lot of respect for Russell until I read this book and discovered that he either misunderstood Nietzsche extremely badly for some reason (emotional response?), and/or felt no compunctions about deliberately lying about him. That really woke me up to reading him more critically, at which point I discovered he is mostly just okay, and certainly not great. He is trapped in a peculiar anglo-pseudo-rationalist view and cannot see out of it.
  - daviddaviddavid 4y ago
    "mostly just okay, and certainly not great" The guy cowrote Principia Mathematica AND won the Nobel prize in literature. He pretty much destroyed Frege's life's work in a witty little personal letter that could've fit on a napkin. He's one of those rare thinkers that did so much that if he only did a tenth of what he actually did he'd still be considered great.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      > He pretty much destroyed Frege's life's work This is a gross exaggeration, and not something that Russell himself would agree with.
      - daviddaviddavid 4y ago
        Here is a the letter from Russel to Jean van Heijenoort in response to the latter's request to print the correspondence between Russell/Frege in "From Frege to Godel" (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/). ---- As I think about acts of integrity and grace, I realise that there is nothing in my knowledge to compare with Frege’s dedication to truth. His entire life’s work was on the verge of completion, much of his work had been ignored to the benefit of men infinitely less capable, his second volume was about to be published, and upon finding that his fundamental assumption was in error, he responded with intellectual pleasure clearly submerging any feelings of personal disappointment. It was almost superhuman and a telling indication of that of which men are capable if their dedication is to creative work and knowledge instead of cruder efforts to dominate and be known. (Quoted in van Heijenoort (1967), 127)
        lapcat 4y ago
        Russell's paradox didn't "destroy" Frege's life work any more than it destroyed Russell's own life work, or set theory in general. Of course it was a problem, and everyone came up with their own workaround. I should say that I don't agree with the OP's opinion that Russell is "not great", but there's no need to exaggerate Russell's importance in order to prove it. Not to mention that the Nobel Prize in literature isn't awarded for philosophical achievement, so that's largely irrelevant.
mdp2021 4y ago
For convenience: https://archive.org/details/TheHistoryOfWesternPhilosophy https://archive.org/details/TheHistoryOfWesternPhilosophy
spindle 4y ago
For people reading Russell: it's important to know in advance that he's funny! I've known an expert (specifically, on Plato) disparage Russell's history until I showed him which of his sentences were jokes, and then they came around to my view that his history is okay (although very condensed).
- cf100clunk 4y ago
  My uncle was a radio journalist in the 1960s, typically packing a little Uher reel-to-reel tape recorder in a satchel to political and academic events. At the end of an address by Russell at a university in Los Angeles, the crowd dissipated and Jim moved in, mic upwards, hoping for a few words from the great man. Russell engaged with him for over an hour in enthusiastic discussion on the topic (Russell's choice) of the Detroit riots. Jim found Russell's voice reedy but his affect warm and encouraging. Sadly, the little tape recorder had run out long before they parted. That little machine had also recorded people like Upton Sinclair, Ronald Reagan, and some Hollywood glitterati.
  - spindle 4y ago
    Wow! IMO (and I am a professional philosopher), Russell was one of the most important philosophers ever, in a good way. And also extremely important in politics (as everyone knows) and in mathematics (as maybe not so many people know). I don't say that just because I agree with him. I could list a lot of disagreements, and even places in which I think he totally lost the plot and had a bad influence. But mostly, even when he was wrong, he had an excellent influence on other people, because of the clarity of his thought and his writing.
daseiner1 4y ago
should be noted that Russell’s HoWP has some major interpretative issues. Most notoriously he wrote prior to Kaufmann’s rehab of Nietzsche’s image in the Anglosphere; Russell interprets him entirely improperly.

swatcoder 4y ago

Nietszche was also a philologist first and foremost and wrote extensively on the topic, albeit in his own irascible style rather than the dry and paternal register of Russell and similar. Which is no accident in either case, as their rhetorical and philosophical heritage trace precisely to the pre-Socratic and Socratic traditions that they identify with.

davidhay 4y ago

+1 for "History of Western Philosophy".

hodgesrm 4y ago

Bertrand Russell is great. He's an outstanding philosopher in his own right and thus equipped to be a great interpreter of others. If you tire of that there are always his tart opinions on philosophers like Nietzche.

Amezarak 4y ago
Russell's opinions of Nietzsche border on libel. I had a lot of respect for Russell until I read this book and discovered that he either misunderstood Nietzsche extremely badly for some reason (emotional response?), and/or felt no compunctions about deliberately lying about him. That really woke me up to reading him more critically, at which point I discovered he is mostly just okay, and certainly not great. He is trapped in a peculiar anglo-pseudo-rationalist view and cannot see out of it.
- daviddaviddavid 4y ago
  "mostly just okay, and certainly not great" The guy cowrote Principia Mathematica AND won the Nobel prize in literature. He pretty much destroyed Frege's life's work in a witty little personal letter that could've fit on a napkin. He's one of those rare thinkers that did so much that if he only did a tenth of what he actually did he'd still be considered great.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > He pretty much destroyed Frege's life's work This is a gross exaggeration, and not something that Russell himself would agree with.
    - daviddaviddavid 4y ago
      Here is a the letter from Russel to Jean van Heijenoort in response to the latter's request to print the correspondence between Russell/Frege in "From Frege to Godel" (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/). ---- As I think about acts of integrity and grace, I realise that there is nothing in my knowledge to compare with Frege’s dedication to truth. His entire life’s work was on the verge of completion, much of his work had been ignored to the benefit of men infinitely less capable, his second volume was about to be published, and upon finding that his fundamental assumption was in error, he responded with intellectual pleasure clearly submerging any feelings of personal disappointment. It was almost superhuman and a telling indication of that of which men are capable if their dedication is to creative work and knowledge instead of cruder efforts to dominate and be known. (Quoted in van Heijenoort (1967), 127)
      - lapcat 4y ago
        Russell's paradox didn't "destroy" Frege's life work any more than it destroyed Russell's own life work, or set theory in general. Of course it was a problem, and everyone came up with their own workaround. I should say that I don't agree with the OP's opinion that Russell is "not great", but there's no need to exaggerate Russell's importance in order to prove it. Not to mention that the Nobel Prize in literature isn't awarded for philosophical achievement, so that's largely irrelevant.

mdp2021 4y ago

For convenience: https://archive.org/details/TheHistoryOfWesternPhilosophy https://archive.org/details/TheHistoryOfWesternPhilosophy

spindle 4y ago

For people reading Russell: it's important to know in advance that he's funny! I've known an expert (specifically, on Plato) disparage Russell's history until I showed him which of his sentences were jokes, and then they came around to my view that his history is okay (although very condensed).

cf100clunk 4y ago
My uncle was a radio journalist in the 1960s, typically packing a little Uher reel-to-reel tape recorder in a satchel to political and academic events. At the end of an address by Russell at a university in Los Angeles, the crowd dissipated and Jim moved in, mic upwards, hoping for a few words from the great man. Russell engaged with him for over an hour in enthusiastic discussion on the topic (Russell's choice) of the Detroit riots. Jim found Russell's voice reedy but his affect warm and encouraging. Sadly, the little tape recorder had run out long before they parted. That little machine had also recorded people like Upton Sinclair, Ronald Reagan, and some Hollywood glitterati.
- spindle 4y ago
  Wow! IMO (and I am a professional philosopher), Russell was one of the most important philosophers ever, in a good way. And also extremely important in politics (as everyone knows) and in mathematics (as maybe not so many people know). I don't say that just because I agree with him. I could list a lot of disagreements, and even places in which I think he totally lost the plot and had a bad influence. But mostly, even when he was wrong, he had an excellent influence on other people, because of the clarity of his thought and his writing.

daseiner1 4y ago

should be noted that Russell’s HoWP has some major interpretative issues. Most notoriously he wrote prior to Kaufmann’s rehab of Nietzsche’s image in the Anglosphere; Russell interprets him entirely improperly.