Would this be a decent place to start with philosophy? Or should

>Mad Anglo
In the trash it goes.

Bertrand Russel was the libcuck of his day. I don't even disagree with some of his viewpoints but I'm sure he's biased.

>>9064469
The early sections are very informative and tightly written but the chapters about Modern Philosophers are pretty worthless. The section on Schopenhauer is just 3 pages of Russell calling him a worthless hypocrite hack and moving on. I mean that's really not an objective recollection of history,

No, that is not a good history.

Try Anthony Kenney's book if you want something of similar length.

>>9064488
Ah ok, I saw it mentioned about his biases when I first heard about the book. Thanks for the example.
>>9064509
Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check it out

>>9064517
I would definitely say that it's a good book in general though. /lit/ has a notorious hate-boner for Russel but he was a good writer and very knowledgeable about philosophy. It's just the last 200 pages that are a bit questionable.

Thales to Dewey is better

I'm actually reading that right now. It's very clear that he has a stick up his ass when it comes to religion, and at one point he even reiterates that stupid 'dark ages' myth where science was oppressed until the glorious renaissance came and freed people from the thought police. I wouldn't trust a thing he has to say about medieval philosophy.

>>9064469
>Bertrand Russell
No. Start with the Greeks.

File: 31866.jpg (32KB, 260x399px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 260x399px

Copleston's history of philosophy is GOAT

>>9064469
It's probably the worst history of philosophy ever written. Start with Fredrick Copleston. It's the best, most comprehensive out there, highly recommended.

>>9064517
Civility of this kind is why I return to /lit/.

>>9064883
"Civility" is for redditors

Try to avoid the all-in-one type of books. It's lazy and dishonest, and you're not going to retain much from such scattershot range of topics anyway and might as well just read wikipedia articles.

>>9064834
This is clearly the best history of philosophy, but it also has by far the least aesthetic covers. And the typesetting is trash. Just kys op.

>>9064944
>look ma I'm a fourchanner now

>>9064822
>at one point he even reiterates that stupid 'dark ages' myth where science was oppressed until the glorious renaissance came and freed people from the thought police
Had that myth been seriously challenged at the time he was writing? Seems a bit like criticising a 19th century writer for being racist tbph

People who have read both, how does Coplestone compare with Kenny? I always see both cited as better than Russell, but have yet to see them square off against each other in the boxing ring of opinion.

>>9064469
If you are going to start with Russell, start with The Problems of Philosophy

just read sophie's world, after that you can jump into source material directly

Was Russell the original John Oliver?

>>9065471
More like the original Dawkins. John Oliver is more respected outside of the US because we aren't steeped in the American ideology he takes jabs at.