Is this worth reading?

Yes.

No it's not. He has an irrational hatred for medieval philosophy and he makes a lot of mistakes with Nietzsche. He's also a literal cuck.

The Anthony Kenny history is better.

>>9548605
I've heard he apologised for some of the Nietzsche stuff, specifically the Luftwaffe comments

>>9548592
no

Yes

Buddha vs Nietzsche showdown is the best in philosophical history

>>9548743

It is a testament to how Bertrand never read anything by Nietzsche. Honestly, it was a complete disaster. At least he apologised later.

>>9548611
This.

File: 1487384744027.jpg (175KB, 1200x1012px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1200x1012px

i am hijacking this thread to ask:
what is the best starter book for Russel ?

>>9548592
>analytic philosopher misses the point entirely and grinds on logical minutiae sucking the life everything
Oh my no

>>9548611
>>9548785
Copleston is GOAT

>>9548866

I just happened to be listening to a debate between him and Russell. I didn't know Copleston wrote a history.

>>9548866
too damn long tho

So if Russel's a pseud, what's a good introductory History of Philosophy style text?
I'm already familiar with most 20th Century and onward thought, and have the Pre-Socratics and Plato pretty well down, but there's a big stretch of history where I only have vague impressions, and only surface level knowledge on Enlightenment era and onward.

>>9548592

It was one of my first philosophy books and oh boy did it damage me. Don't do this to yourself OP, analytics like Russell are dry bastards and you'll miss out on a lot by reading anything from him that is not strictly analytical.

If by all means you insist on reading a historical perspective of philosophy instead of the actual works, go for "A New History of Western Philosophy" by Anthony Kenny. Kenny is a much more impartial agent and doesn't smear his bullshit views over the philosophy of other people.

>>9548592

It's fucking terrible. I've rarely seen someone be so completely wrong about so many things.

>>9548894
i see The Great Conversation recommended often

>>9548592
Absolutely not.

File: 1440265224264.jpg (70KB, 680x453px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 680x453px

>>9548592
>Bertrand Russel

>>9548592
Definitely worth it.

>>9548592

Just get Western Philosophy by John Cottingham.

>>9548925
This

Just go for the Columbia History of Western Philosophy

ITT: butthurt christtards

reading it right now. wonderfully informative so far

>>9549316
Wait until he completely bungles everything after Hume because he is reading bad translations.

>>9548894
Copleston's histories. They're multi-volume, and don't really rely on having read previous volumes (though one can certainly benefit from doing so). Maybe look to his volumes on the Enlightenment period and look for whichever volumes take on periods you're interested in.

>>9548592
it's an interesting read, but you gotta keep in mind the prejudice that Russell had on traditional philosophy. It's more of an understanding of Russell's position against philosophy instead than the history of it. At least it's not as judgemental and reductionist as his "Why I am not a Christian".

>>9549362
do any of the other recommended texts in thread avoid this?

>>9548592
Stylistically, sure, it's a very *fun* read in parts. As a history of philosophy, no. Russell opens by accepting as given a philosophical position that amounts to a historicist reading of all of the philosophers, namely that they're *primarily* to be better understood as products and representative figures of their times. Now, that doesn't sound immediately bad or wrong, but the issue to be had with that is that in doing so, one immediately *fails* to recognize the cases wherein philosophers and their thinking *doesn't* mesh with or represent their times. Mind, if we applied that standard to Russell and his own work, than we can dismiss him as lightly as he does most of the philosophers he describes. Secondly, for a student of philosophy, it should seem paradoxical and unacceptable to guide the work by a philosophical thesis that has yet to be proved from the outset.

The other large presupposition is that of Russell's form of positivism, which guides him in all of his judgements. So all of the figures are judged in accordance with the canon of standards Russell accepts, and so the big continuous problem for Russell with most philosophers is that they don't know the kind of logic he has access to. That would be fine if it weren't evident that he usually doesn't grasp the differences between the aims of ancient and modern reason and how their grounds were understood, such that Aristotle's logic stems from reflection on ontology (and so is dependent and subsequent to asking questions about physics and metaphysics), whereas Russell just takes it for granted that we're to consider epistemological questions first; in the process, he just doesn't get why ancient philosophers don't treat logic the same way, and he's disinterested in learning why.

He also relies (very evidently for students more familiar with the primary texts of the philosophers) very strongly, to an embarrassing degree, on secondary literature instead of reading the primary texts, which is a shaky foundation for a text attempting to function to some extent as secondary lit itself. And certain philosophers he just does not get in the least, most famously Nietzsche, but he also doesn't get Hegel at all, which *should* be embarrassing when you realize that he spent a decade as a British Idealist in the tradition of Hegelian thought.

He also adds Byron, a poet, in to give some time to Romanticism, which is needless, and then complains about it. Everything about that is fucking stupid.

Also, he wrote the book only because he needed the cash.

>>9549421
Columbia's history of western philosophy. Or open the index and read the equivalent entry on the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy

>>9548592
No. Avoid reading things written by Anglos.

>>9548881
What did you think of it?

>>9549311
>Intellectual
>Atheist

Pick one.

>>9548592
no it's fucking garbage

>>9549434
Good post

>>9549379
>good introductory history of philosophy text
>multi volume
nah, senpai

>>9548942
The Great Conversation appears to be very textbook format and apparently has a lot of extra indexes and such that don't really benefit me, but thanks for the suggestion

>>9548592
It's not a bad book, but awfully flawed since he purposefully doesn't include the most influential philosophers of early 20th century like Husserl and Wittgenstein. I can somewhat relate on why he didn't add Heidegger and Wittgenstein, but don't understand the reason about Husserl.

>>9548743
that was disgusting to me even as a 14 y/o kid i mean how did the madman get away with writing that shit

>>9549434
These kinds of quality posts are why I come to /lit/, even though they're far and between.

>>9548881
He wrote THE history. 11 volumes, best general resource on philosophy out there.

>>9548592
No. Russell was an idiot who barely knew what he was talking about and he has a very strong presentist bias (he was a basic bitch progressive). Read his math work, not his philosophy.

>>9548611
/thread

much better

>>9548903
Russell wasn't dry. He simply had no fucking clue what he was talking about most of the time.

>>9549311
I am an atheist. Russell is worthless beyond his logic and math work. If even that. Not a lot came out of the Principia.

File: 919mvu2ffVL.jpg (723KB, 1400x2100px) Image search: [Google]

723KB, 1400x2100px

>>9548592
Read Sophie's World