3 ms·
> Russell's opinions of Nietzsche border on libel. Gee, Nietzsche's opinions of almost everyone go well past the libel border, and that's no exaggeration. Rus
by yesenadam 4y ago
> Russell's opinions of Nietzsche border on libel.
Gee, Nietzsche's opinions of almost everyone go well past the libel border, and that's no exaggeration.
Russell's History is a good read, lots of good jokes as usual, but there are much fairer and more accurate histories of philosophy. e.g. I like Copleston's multi-volume History of Philosophy, or reading in the Stanford encyc of philosophy on particular topics/people. https://plato.stanford.edu/ https://plato.stanford.edu/
My favourite historical philosophy book is Santayana's Egotism in German Philosophy[0], which covers from Leibniz to the Nazi philosophy - and was written in 1916! Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche etc. Santayana's sense of humour is much more gentle than Russell or Nietzsche's, more a wise twinkle in his eye. For example, Ch.2 The Protestant Heritage begins:
"The German people, according to Fichte and Hegel, are called by the plan of Providence to occupy the supreme place in the history of the universe. A little consideration of this belief will perhaps lead us more surely to the heart of German philosophy than would the usual laborious approach to it through what is called the theory of knowledge."
- comedic genius. He wrote other great historical surveys, e.g. Winds of Doctrine and Character and Opinion in the U.S. When I read him, on Emerson or Nietzsche, say, I'm always amazed how he puts his finger on the crux of the matter so elegantly, and describes so clearly what others can't even see.
[0] https://archive.org/details/egotismingermanp48431gut https://archive.org/details/egotismingermanp48431gut
(Am a huge fan of both Russell and Nietzsche, they're both among my favourite writers of prose.)
- lapcat 4y agoAlso Russell: "I have not found in Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations anything that seemed to me interesting"
- yesenadam 4y agoI'm not sure what your point is. The quote is from My Philosophical Development, and the chapter it's from, Some Replies to Criticism, is worth a read. https://archive.org/details/myphilosophicald0000russ/page/214/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/myphilosophicald0000russ/page/21... (must be 'borrowed' to read) There's a whole other chapter on Wittgenstein, The Impact of Wittgenstein. https://archive.org/details/myphilosophicald0000russ/page/110/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/myphilosophicald0000russ/page/11...
- lapcat 4y agoMy point is that "He is trapped in a peculiar anglo-pseudo-rationalist view and cannot see out of it" seems like a valid criticism that has nothing to do with Nietzsche's opinions of other philosophers.
- Amezarak 4y agoNietzsche is fond of playful personal attacks (which do sometimes become shrill by the end of his life on some matters), but he engages with the thought honestly. Russell does not. That is what I see as the difference. It's one thing to say someone is a crazy dummy, it's another to say that and then totally misrepresent what they thought while claiming to educate the reader.
- cf100clunk 4y ago>> he engages with the thought honestly. Russell does not. I'm struggling with your use of the word ''honestly''. I have usually taken Russell at his word, bowing to his widely lauded expertise. When he referred to Rousseau as a lunatic, I was inclined to believe him and never for a moment felt that he was being dishonest. If anything, it forced me to check out Rousseau one more time. Nietzsche never instilled that same sense of awe within me or desire to do further work following up on his own critical targets.