Appearance
History of Western Philosophy
I was just watching the great debate between Bertrand Russell and Fr. Copleston online again at the video site, and it is so charming, the whole thing. Bertrand Russell wins truly at every point with very elegant and ultimately rather humanly modest logic. What is so charming is that Copleston keeps going even though he is getting trounced on every point, and makes his arguments with great valor. And yet, and yet, it caused me to reflect that when Russell tried to write a "history" of philosophy he produced one of the most confusing summaries ever. Do not believe all the great praise here, for all the famous reviews seem to really be reviewing Lord Russell as a persona, who of course was incomparably brilliant, witty, charming and decorous. Or his work, which is a phenomenon in itself. But as a summarizer, he was clearly poor. Whereas, Copleston was one of the best ever, and his history of philosophy is so clear and honest, even, or maybe even especially, or modes of thought he apparently wildly disagreed with. It just seems to come down to a different talent. But as a debater with Russell, he was clearly no match, but a great sport.
History of Western Philosophy
Russell's education, intelligence, style and wit are in abundant evidence. Although he does cover W. philosophy, it is in great bounds. And as much as I love Russell's piercing insights and dry wit, I occasionally cringed at the obvious British, 20th century perspective from which philosophies and philosophers were reviewed. This all works out just fine, if one knows better than to take some of his criticism as solid arguments. This book is a joy to read, even with occasional flaws.
History of Western Philosophy
Russell describes, in a clear and entertaining way, the philosophical theories of the main thinkers of Western philosophy. This is not the typical textbook, full of academic terms and complicated sentences. On the contrary, he efforts himself to explain the different concepts both clearly and easily. Although it is rather long, there's no reason to be afraid about it because it is easy to understand for people like me, who are beginners in the subject.Another intersting fact about the book, is that all theories are explained within a very detailed historical context. This contributes to the full understading of the reasons that influenced each author's ideas.I recommend this book to anyone who wants to approach philosophy through a comprehensive and easy to read work.
History of Western Philosophy
"A History of Western Philosophy" leaves out some of the most influential thinkers of the Twentieth Century, but it was written in and around World War II and it is often very difficult to predict who will be remembered and who will be forgotten in your own lifetime. That said, this mighty tome is a sourcebook of world-shaping ideas and precise logical arguments and contains many different ways of looking at various philosophical problems, including the perennial ones. The intricacy of Russell's understanding of each philosopher's mind is noteworthy for its clarity, and this becomes much more apparent with each reading, and even more so as the decades pass. My original copy is a paperback with a split spine, and its brown, dog-eared pages are filled with so many underlined passages now that I am loath to part with it, even though I have a new hardback in mint condition.As many reviewers have noted, Bertrand Russell disliked Nietzsche and was very critical of Rousseau. He didn't think much of Kant either, but this is what makes the book so fascinating. Russell is a lot like Nietzsche in that he is not afraid to cross swords with the greatest of philosophers, especially if their lofty notions can be sliced to ribbons by his acerbic wit and absolute mastery of logical positivistic technique. By the way, Nietzsche also had a low opinion of Kant, calling him "a moral fanatic a' la Rousseau." And that was one of Nietzsche's kinder statements with respect to Kant, or Rousseau too for that matter. So really, Lord Russell is only giving Nietzsche a dose of his own hard medicine. His comments may seem scathing now, but we are far more forgiving of Nietzsche's type today than we would have been when Russell was writing this book. I mean, I love Nietzsche and have read almost everything he has written, but in truth he was a misanthrope who sublimated the dark side of his personality into a philosophy of power. His "girlfriend," Lou Salome' knew this about him, and told Freud. Thus, Nietzsche the Superman was human, all too human. But then, aren't we all?Moving along, Russell offers one of the best critiques of Karl Marx I've ever read. He deals with Marx as a philosopher and an influence on the philosophy of others, and does not discuss his economics or his politics, except in a general sense. In this way Russell reveals some of the irrational biases that were largely unconscious in Marx as he developed his social and political theories. For according to Marx, it was not enough to interpret the world in various ways; the trick was to alter it. Thus, Marx was the first philosopher that Russell knew of to criticize the notion of "truth" from this activist point of view. This prompts Russell to launch into a discussion of the whole history of philosophy and the unconscious biases that have shaped them all. Fireworks popping in a night sky is the only way to describe the brilliance of Russell's prose as he tap dances through his own encyclopedic mind.Some of Russell's most favorable reviews go to Plotinus and David Hume. And he seems to regard St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas in a very positive light as well, perhaps because they both owed so much to Plotinus. Which is why his glowing account of Plotinus is so surprising, especially when we consider the fact that Russell was an agnostic, as well as a logical positivist (and eventually a logical empiricist), who, like Hume, regarded metaphysics as sophistry and illusion. And yet, the sheer beauty of the metaphysical world as described by Plotinus seems to offer Russell a rare form of personal redemption. Russell revels in the beauty of his philosophy and wears it like a cloak made of starlight. And why not? Hume's flawless logic and irrefutable truth offer very little comfort in our bruised and battered world. But the philosophy of Plotinus stirs the soul and fills us with a transcendent ecstasy.Students of religious history will discover that Bertrand Russell knew a great deal about the Church, its theology, and how philosophy did or did not interpenetrate its teachings at various stages of development. His account of St. Augustine is positively amazing, a distillation of his best ideas into pure gold. Russell's great humanity allows him to remain fully cognizant of St. Augustine's most outlandish metaphysical speculations while, at the same time, not believing them. He is always respectful toward the man and his great mind, and honors his finest insights as true philosophy. So, there is much more here than meets the eye upon first glance.A great companion to this book is Bryan Magee's "The Story of Philosophy." If you're a starstruck lover of Sophia, read them both. But you can't go wrong with this one. It's packed with edifying wisdom and even humor. Its real value, however, lies in its technical virtuosity. Bertrand Russell was the philosopher's philosopher. He knew the field backwards and forwards and was uniquely wired to simplify its complexities and isolate its inconsistencies. They just don't make 'em like him anymore.
History of Western Philosophy
Russell's Introduction is a well-written, entertaining introduction to philosopy. It is very expansive, covering dozens of philosophers and philosophical movements/trends/systems/etc., and spanning thousands of years.The only issue I have with this book is its exclusion of certain, lesser known philosophers whom I particularly like (a minour issue), and its sometimes superficial overviews of the philosophers within. That is why I suggest corroborating your knowledge with another, more in-depth introduction to philosophy, like Durant's Story of Philosophy.Though it is not necessarily a criticism, I would like to point out that Russell's bias toward philosophers appears very strongly herein, so the reader should not expect a completely objective, neutral approach-- Russell is adamently opposed to many he deals with, such as Rousseau, Marx, Nietzsche, and other, less logic-inclined philosophers! Be warned: you are not likely to agree with his analysis all the time, and might at times find it somewhat inappropriate.
History of Western Philosophy
Sir Bertrand Russell is one of the most important philosophers and mathematicians of the 20th century and in this book, targeted to the lay person, he endeavours to explain what is behind the rationale of each and every important Western philosopher since Greek Antiquity and what was his contribution to modern Western thinking.His own philosophical ideas are portrayed in the end of the book by means of him showing what was right and wrong in his opinio in the most modern theories which he helped to develop in paralell to Whitehead, Wittgestein , Moore and others.The book begins with a very detailed description of the philosophical background in ancient Greece (circa 700 BC), portraying the thinking of Thales, Plato, Aristotle and all Greek philosophers important at the time and later, explaining the pros and cons of the philosophy each one embraced, giving a lot of pertinent and useful historical information on the historical background of each period. He does also adequate coverage of the oral tradition of the Iliad and Odissey, the foundations of Western literature.From Ancient Greece, to whom it devotes the greatest part of the book covering the ideas of Plato, Socrates and Aristotles, he goes to the heiday of the Roman Empire and the first steps of Christian Philosophy, to the period of the Arab conquest, Religious thought at the Middle Ages, the Scholastics thinkers, the rise of the Scientific thought in the 18th century, until the year where the book was written (1945). The at the time raging World War II gives special scope to Bertrand Russel, a notorious/contradictory pacifist, to show some philosophical schools as a spring board to Soviet totalitarianism and others to Nazism. It is interesting to note that, as happened also with other subjects in which Russell deep dived, socialisma and communism were of such issues where he many times changed his mind in the course of his long and fruitful life.This book (836 pages)is a serious effort to portray the best minds of Western civilization in a very clear and precise light, trademarks of Lord Bertrand Russel. There you will know that Nietszche, besides praising as semi-gods persons like Napoleon, Frederic II and Julio Cesar, great men who deserved to use all the means available in order to perpetrate their indidual ends, ended his shrot life mentally insane. Also, some very negative facts of the life of the great French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau are there, like, for instance, the lightness with which Rousseau had himself disentangled from robbery accusations by fingerpointing a woman servant he knew was not guilty. Sure, despite being a very devastating malefic influence to everybody around him, Lord Bertrand Russel had a high opinion of himself, never seeming to undertand that evil doing was a two-way road, that is, that he did evil to others as they did him.In my opinion, this is a very good reading for anyone interested in Philosophy, rational thinking, theories of origins of God, theories of the State, etc..Strange as it seems, not only one woman appears as a great thinker, one thing it would not be the same if the book was written today, where the general masculine bias would be pretty much diminished. Regarding Russell, he manifestly had a clear disdain for every thought emanated from women, something Mr.Ray Monk says was determined by the fact that Lord Russel lost his mother very early in his childhood.