Is this book a good introduction for western philosophy?

No.

File: 021[1].jpg (861KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

861KB, 2048x1536px

>better

>>9623265
It is good enough as an introduction yes and Russel is very charming.

I bought it a while ago. Leafed through it, then regretted it.

You're much better off with taking the time to read the philosophers you're interested in first then move on from there

>>9623320
Elaborate.

>>9623383
it's better than bertrand's "history of western philosophy" and he covers more recent ventures in philosophy

>>9623265
No. Easily the worst choice you can make. Read Copleston.

>>9623265
He's far better with maths and science- for instance the A B C of Relativity is a pretty good introduction to the concept of relativity (if youre a kid). The book in question however is thinly tendentious, almost willfully blind.

>>9623265
Start with the Greeks

Read "The First Philosophers" published by Oxford, then read some Plato and Aristotle. Books like these cover far too much material to be useful, get an academically respected overview of greek philosophy if you want secondary lit.

>>9623265
Just finished this. Not fond of it, desu. Sure, it has given me an overview of the major philosophers up until Russell's own day, but there are supposedly many misreadings and absences, and Russell gives his biased opinion on every single thing in the entire book.

Would have been better off just reading through summaries on Stanford Encyclopedia and then moving on to the philosophers that most interested me.

The historical chapters and references are a nice touch, though. Probably not something you find in every introduction to philosophy.

You should note, Russell can be bizarre in what he chooses to explain - he will start some fairly easy topics from the bottom, while more complex ideas he will assume the reader has a comfortable knowledge of already, perhaps he assumes everyone reading the book has already read his Problems of Philosophy.

>>9623528
Russel can write engaging history (there's a book he wrote on western thought that was much better, the name escapes me) and good philosophy, but this book is definitely not among his best. It's a bit of a shame too, because everyone seems to judge him based on it.

>>9623553
Believe the book is An Outline of Philosophy- it is better.

just stick to The Columbia History of Western Philosophy which was also published as The Pimlico History of Western Philosophy.

Everybody here needs to just shut the fuck up and bulldoze thru Copleston's 11 volume masterpiece, okay?