History of Western Philosophy (Routledge Classics)

Product Information

What is best about this book is that it has inspired me to read some more Plato (I started his complete dialogues some time ago, but things got in the way. He asks us all to examine, with honesty and sympathy the evidence we have before us for, as Richard Feynman said, "Nature can not be fooled".

Not only is this an excellent primer on all the major Western philosophers and an impressive synthesis of the evolution of philosophic thought over a 2500-year span, it's also one of the wittier books I've ever read. As a historian, he is using at least three hats as: mathematician, English citizen and philosopher himself. Apesar de sabermos que temos de colocar algum travão nas impressões imediata, já que Russell não se coíbe nunca de ser crítico, mesmo quando está a falar de milhares de anos atrás, em contextos sociais completamente opostos àquele em que hoje vivemos.

No people anywhere in the world would accept being expelled en masse from their own country; how can anyone require the people of Palestine to accept a punishment which nobody else would tolerate? There was only one thing that really bugged me in this book and that was the omission of Kierkegaard. In his view, Russell was at his best when dealing with contemporary philosophy, and that in contrast "his treatment of ancient and medieval doctrines is nearly worthless. Written late in life by one of the great contributors to philosophy and logic, who was also a man of deep and abiding liberal principles, it is a unique book.

In Germany, Fichte, Hegel and their followers fell into radical subjectivism - even going so far as making absurd claims as the self, or the Ego is the only thing that exists. Indeed, it’s not only a masterpiece because of the coverage and learning within the pages of the book, but also because of Russell’s wit and writing style. In each of these periods, Russell is careful to provide a meaningful amount of historical context, as he describes the major life events, the ideas, and the influence of the philosophers he covers.Russell enjoyed writing it, and the enjoyment shows; his later remarks about it equally show that he was conscious of its shortcomings. Essentially, I've always thought that to move away from discussing the ‘truth’ of statements and to instead consider their ‘efficacy’ is a slippery slope and one that can all too easily bring us to splash down into logical and moral difficulties. This sentiment is more a reflection of philosophy's break between the analytic and the continental modes of thought than it is an honest criticism. Glad to have it but think it would've been better as an Ebook or Audiobook really, or split into two volumes perhaps? Russell also stated: "I regarded the early part of my History of Western Philosophy as a history of culture, but in the later parts, where science becomes important, it is more difficult to fit into this framework.

Hitler caused him to later renounce his pacifism, to the point that he wished he were younger so that he might don a uniform himself. Por isso, não é de estranhar que Russell ataque praticamente todos os filósofos que lista ao longo das várias centenas de páginas. I'll probably pick Gottlieb's Dream of Reason for Greek philosophy, and later Anthony Kenny's book for another reference when I decide to do this again.Every community is exposed to two opposite dangers, ossification through too much discipline and reverence for tradition, on the one hand; on the other hand, dissolution, or subjection to foreign conquest, through the growth of an individualism and personal independence that makes co-operation impossible. C. Grayling, "Almost all those who reviewed Russell's now famous History of Western Philosophy when it first appeared in 1945 were agreed about two things: first, that it is beautifully written, witty, clear, lucid and magisterial; and second, that it is not always accurate in its account of the thinkers it covers, nor always fair to them.