I know Russell's A History of Western Philosophy is not

>>9336429
No.

>>9336461
Do you have any recommendations?

>>9336429
I don't know anon but I'm planning to read that as well so i'll just watch your thread

>>9336463
>>9336429

Fuck off with books like that.

If you don't study philosophy by intensely studying every single philosophical text ever written in chronological order, then you will never understand philosophy.

>>9336473
I can tell you're an autodidact idiot. Everybody knows you need to study ancient Greek first, and study it for at least 10 years.

>>9336463
Stop reading and hit the clubs.

>>9336473
I don't have time for that, I'm deducing every math theorem by myself without external influence.

>>9336472
Probably won't get any serious answers.

I liked it but I'm an autodidact so what do I know. several professors whose opinions seem respectable have given it favorable reviews if you search they're opinions on the book are probably available online

I'm reading: The Passion of the Western Mind, by Richard Tarnas.

That book is a shitty. Keep away from it, trust me.

>>9336473
looks like youre not at nietzche yet anon, your making a lot of false assumptions here

Isn't Kenny the one with the absolute retarded understanding of Aquinas?

How did /lit/ turn into such a shithole? Anyway, yeah it seems to be well reviewed by philosophy profs.

>>9336832
It doesn't matter, Aquinas was a non-cognitive hack.