Is this a good primer on philosophy?
Is this a good primer on philosophy?
No because the author is Bertrand Russell, the twice mywifesoned.
Not at all.
Haven't read it, but people have told me it's pretty decent.
The Nietzsche section is supposedly really bad though, so bare that in mind.
No, A New History of Western Philosophy by Anthony Kenny is better.
Russell is a poor historian of philosophy. He deliberately misrepresents thinkers he doesn't like.
It'll reflect Russell's biases due to his operating within the Anglo-American tradition.
Stick with John Cottingham and Anthony Kenny. Both have their own imperfections but are better overall than Russell.
I've heard that Russell spills his spaghetti many times in this book, but if one takes this in consideration is it still a decent reading?
No.
Read Copleston instead.
no. ignore everything that comes out of those fucking islands
By no means completely or comprehensive on the subject and a more accurate book tittle should have been The Story of Some Parts of Philosophy, but Will Durant is such a great and engaging writer that I'm still recommending it.
Hands down the greatest history of philosophy. A forgotten classic.
Russell is heavily opinionated and there are sections you should not take seriously at all such as Nietzsche and Hegel; however, despite Yea Forums being obsessed with the fact that he was a cuckold he was a brilliant writer and if you've not been introduced to a lot of philosophy it is a good primer. I haven't read the newer histories though.
Instead of reading theese overpriced memebooks watch the interview series Bryan Magee made about the most important western philosophers (Hegel, Kant, Wittgenstein) and then read the primary texts on gutenberg with some Gregory Sadler if you can't understand the text. That's it. You don't need theese expansive trash books.
>paying for books
What is the internet for?
He was pretty awful for the Ancient Philosophers. Reading him on them is counter productive.
A wise man once said:
>Russell's works should be bound in two colours, those dealing with mathematical logic in red—and all students of philosophy should read them; those dealing with ethics and politics in blue—and no one should be allowed to read them.
I don't know.
>In 1943, Russell expressed support for Zionism: "I have come gradually to see that, in a dangerous and largely hostile world, it is essential to Jews to have some country which is theirs, some region where they are not suspected aliens, some state which embodies what is distinctive in their culture."
I read it when I was just getting into philosophy and it works as a good general picture even if the later sections are boring and shit. What a fucking stuck up man though, his arrogance just seeps through the pages.
Dear user who always posts about Jew shit,
What's your short list of philosophers and authors who have no relation to Judaism whatsoever? What would Yea Forums look like if you had no record to correct? What is your ideal world?
It was ghost written
I don't think I am saying that they shouldn't be read, I think I am saying something else. There probably aren't any thinkers that I can list who you aren't already familiar with or couldn't find anywhere else. My ideal world is impossible unfortunately.
based
This.
Is cuck now worldfiltered?
He's just lacking in the 'knowing what's funny' part of his brain.
Came here to post this
Read City of God instead