4 ms·
Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. It's a bit biased and is rough around the edges, but it's a fun journey each time. I read it first in undergra
by wannabebarista 3y ago
Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. It's a bit biased and is rough around the edges, but it's a fun journey each time. I read it first in undergrad and pick it up again every few years.
- adamquek 3y agoIt's a pretty long read though. I wouldn't want to put myself through it again...
- greatpostman 3y agoExtremely biased. Only obvious when you know a philosopher well that he covers
- DataDaoDe 3y agoGiven that everything is biased at the very least by the nature of limited resources, in what ways would you say it’s biased? Does it present false information?
- wannabebarista 3y agoHere is basically the consensus take: "Almost all those who reviewed Russell's now famous History of Western Philosophy when it first appeared in 1945 were agreed about two things: first, that it is beautifully written, witty, clear, lucid and magisterial; and second, that it is not always accurate in its account of the thinkers it covers, nor always fair to them." [0] The book is certainly worth reading but one should keep in mind its weak spots. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Western_Philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Western_Philosoph...
- bitzun 3y agoTo illustrate, this is one of my favorite (humorous) lines from it, in the introductory chapter: "In the Eastern Empire, Greek civilization, in a desiccated form, survived, as in a museum, till the fall of Constantinople in 1453, _but nothing of importance to the world came out of Constantinople except an artistic tradition and Justinian's Codes of Roman law._"