You guys seem to think Russell is horrifically biased. What is

>>7446280
lit philosophy guide

Copleston

>>7446280
Start with the Greeks. They didn't have an overview of Western philosophy book when they were teaching one another.

hegel's lectures on philosophy

>>7446313
Reading this one right now, it's pretty great but not as a first introduction to philosophy, I think.

I was about to make a new thread for this but I think I can ask here: what books do you guys suggest about the pre-Socratics, exclusively?

>>7446280
It is biased, but i would recommend it anyway. Just keep that in mind and it's fine. Some parts are still very good - especially those where he spends a few pages talking about the historical and geographical context.

>>7446296
He's no better, IMO.

Just read entries on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, OP (http://plato.stanford.edu/). It offers good introductions to pretty much every philosopher.

>>7446296
Seconding.

>>7446333
>He's no better, IMO.
First time I've heard this about Copleston. How do you mean?

Wikipedia.

>>7446280
Copleston for sure.

>>7446280
To be honest, there's no way you can write a comprehensive history of philosophy in one book without tragically misrepresenting some or all of the philosophers discussed. The former makes you biased and the latter makes you useless. The only way to really develop a meaningful understanding of the history of philosophy is to start at the beginning and work slowly and sympathetically onwards - but of course this takes a lot of effort, and in the meantime judicious application of the Google apparatus can give you something to work with.

>>7446280
OP I think it's excellent till about schopenhauer.
It is biased and simplistic and all, but it's extremely enjoyable.

If you want a more objective, complete and modern overview, read sir Anthony's Kenny history.

What about THOWP do people say is biased? I'm guessing he's critical of Nietzsche and continentals, which I don't really mind.