Did Russell wrote his infamous western philosophy book just to

>>9207819
>guy writes a history of western philosophy with his own at the end
>literally every other philosophy before is analyzed under the auspcies of his analytic philosophy
gee, who would have known?

He did it to write philosophers he didn't like out the history of western philosophy
He failed

Yes, he did, but it's not his fault. Everyone does it. Try yourself to write a history of western philosophy. Be as neutral and fair as you can. In the end you'll be unconsciously writing a manifest of your own personal thinking about the world.

>>9207835
Not too sure about that. You can also just be honest towards an author and stand on his side while you present it. That's what I'd do if I should write about Plato or Hobbes or Descartes or Hegel. But it's because I had some great teachers. Russell's ultimate flaw is that he never properly learnt philosophy. Now, thanks to his Principia Mathematica, there were people sucking his dick and calling him a philosopher before he even knew anything accurate about , let's say, Rousseau. The result is that he mistook himself for a legit historian of philosophy.

Hell, when you don't understand an acclaimed author, you should first think, "maybe I'm being dumb, let's try again". Russell was far too self-confident.

Pretty brilliant. Guy must be smart as hell.

He did it for money.