Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.07 AVERAGE
4.07 AVERAGE
challenging
informative
slow-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
More interesting from a historical perspective than a philosophical one. In classical early twentieth-century style, opinion and amateur psychoanalysis of the book's subjects abound. This is both interesting and amusing although I worry that readers today may take this as factual. The later chapters are where the book most shows its age, particularly in the chapters on Nietzsche where various knowledge has changed since 1945. Well worth a read, Russell is entertaining and educative throughout.
When I die.. I want it engraved in my tomb (go big or go home) that I finished this book. While there is certainly a wealth of information in this book I found very little of it engaging. Regardless, I appreciate the accumulation of this history and how it is presented. If you want to read philosophy.. read another book. If you want a historical background of what was going on when your favorite philosopher wrote their thoughts down.. then this book might be for you!
challenging
informative
slow-paced
Maybe a good intro but he can't help but give his personal opinion on all of the philosophers in the book. Which might make it better or worse depending on how you look at it.
A great introduction to the Philosophic tradition. It is about 2/3 history and 1/3 philosophy. This isn't a bad thing, but something to be aware of.
I definitely wasn't able to absorb all that this book offers, but I can see it being a valuable reference resource in the future.
I definitely wasn't able to absorb all that this book offers, but I can see it being a valuable reference resource in the future.
I'll start with my biggest criticism to this work, by far: Russell's biases. But it's hard to rate this book poorly on that account as Russell himself admits how biased it is and that he had no intention of making some absolutely neutral analysis of western philosophy ("I was sometimes accused by reviewers of writing not a true history but a biased account of the events that I arbitrarily chose to write of. But to my mind, a man without bias cannot write interesting history — if, indeed, such a man exists."). Even with that in mind, having some knowledge about some of the thinkers he covers, it is possible to see that sometimes his criticism is somewhat shallow.
An alternative title to the book could have been "Why every philosopher before me was wrong and how only the analytic school is the right way of doing philosophy". The way he criticizes most of the philosophers from the past leaves an impression that they were influential but fundamentally wrong. Until you get to the last chapter where he introduces his own school, almost all of the chapters have a mostly negative coverage (perhaps not the ones on Aquinas and Locke). And, to be completely fair, he does acknowledge the limitations of his way of doing philosophy (on how it can do little to further the discussion on Ethics and other major topics concerning human life) but he acts with some hubris on how certain and scientific his methods are on solving issues that can be seen as arid and disconnected from daily life.
Still, Russell's criticisms incentivizes the reader to go to the primary sources and check with their own eyes if whether he says is true and take part in the discussion. He does a good job of giving a general first impression on the philosophers and showing the historical progression of their ideas.
If you are willing to take into account how biased the book is and not take it as gospel, it is a great starting point into further philosophical investigations.
An alternative title to the book could have been "Why every philosopher before me was wrong and how only the analytic school is the right way of doing philosophy". The way he criticizes most of the philosophers from the past leaves an impression that they were influential but fundamentally wrong. Until you get to the last chapter where he introduces his own school, almost all of the chapters have a mostly negative coverage (perhaps not the ones on Aquinas and Locke). And, to be completely fair, he does acknowledge the limitations of his way of doing philosophy (on how it can do little to further the discussion on Ethics and other major topics concerning human life) but he acts with some hubris on how certain and scientific his methods are on solving issues that can be seen as arid and disconnected from daily life.
Still, Russell's criticisms incentivizes the reader to go to the primary sources and check with their own eyes if whether he says is true and take part in the discussion. He does a good job of giving a general first impression on the philosophers and showing the historical progression of their ideas.
If you are willing to take into account how biased the book is and not take it as gospel, it is a great starting point into further philosophical investigations.
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
What learned from this book:
1. Locke deserved his influence.
2. Schopenhauer/Nietsche/Bergson: raving lunatics.
3. Heidegger is so non-sensical you need not even learn how to spell his name.
4 Don't forget about Dewey, James.
4. Superficial overviews can be surprisingly uninformative.
5. Clever, conversational prose can carry you through an entire 900-page book.
1. Locke deserved his influence.
2. Schopenhauer/Nietsche/Bergson: raving lunatics.
3. Heidegger is so non-sensical you need not even learn how to spell his name.
4 Don't forget about Dewey, James.
4. Superficial overviews can be surprisingly uninformative.
5. Clever, conversational prose can carry you through an entire 900-page book.