[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 263 KB, 1589x1960, Yousuf-Karsh-Bertrand-Russell-1949-1589x1960.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12311427 No.12311427 [Reply] [Original]

Did I make a mistake when I bought his "History of Western Philosophy"?

>> No.12311436

Yes
t. Copleston

>> No.12311439

You made a mistake thinking this creature is a 'him'.

>> No.12311457

>>12311427
Yep

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8412068-a-new-history-of-western-philosophy

I have this ^, read about and bought it after being discouraged from my initial enthusiasm about bertrand russel's book as it turned out russell compares the philosophers' ideas to his own, often maliciously. I love Anthony Kenny's, it's a pageturner for such a big book with such a small font, he writes it very entertainingly and clear

>> No.12311500

>>12311427
Yes

>> No.12311538

There are probably better histories I've read, but it's not that bad anon. Don't always just assume the popular /lit/ meme is correct.

>> No.12311543

>>12311538
It is worthless (or worse than it) for Ancient Philosophy.

>> No.12311549
File: 46 KB, 397x345, 34124321423.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12311549

>> No.12311572

>>12311427
Yes

>> No.12311592

>>12311427
You buy books? lol

>> No.12311961

>>12311538
Reveals much about Russell, but little about anything else- just a rant, really. Good supplement to the Autobiography, I suppose, but that's pretty much it.

>> No.12311972

why does lit hate analytical philosophy

>> No.12312005

>>12311427
There’s something generally unsettling about Russell. Not his looks, not his logic, but his vibe. Maybe I’m just crazy but I always feel like I would not want him in charge of the world

>> No.12312006

>>12311972
Lit loves Wittgenstein though

>> No.12312012
File: 26 KB, 400x386, 1436882070124170597.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12312012

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dora_Russell
>Black and Russell were married on September 25, 1921 at Battersea Town Hall with Eileen Power and Frank Russell acting as witnesses. Black, who was seven months pregnant with the couple's first child, John, wore black during the ceremony. Their second child Kate was born in 1923.[1]
>She had at first rejected Russell's offer of marriage. In common with some radical women of her generation she felt the laws regulating marriage contributed to women's subjugation.[3] In her view, only parents should be bound by a social contract, and only insofar as their co-operation was required for raising their children. Implicit was her conviction that both men and women were polygamous by nature and should therefore be free, whether married or not, to engage in sexual relationships that were based on mutual love. In this she was as much an early sexual pioneer as in her fight for women's right to information about, and free access to, birth control methods. She regarded these as essential for women to gain control over their own lives, and eventually become fully emancipated.

Imagine being this cucked

>> No.12312024

>>12312006
>Wittgenstein

He's from Austria, that makes him a Continental Philosopher.

>> No.12312029

>>12312005
What he lacks is patience, which is understandable given his perpetually being in debt. The man literally traded on his status of being a celebrity, which for me is a cause of discomfort. Nothing beyond what are intended as introductory works- the A, B, C of Relativity is good if one's just beginning to attempt to understand the idea of its use by Einstein, for instance -feels like a finished or thoroughly thought out much less honestly researched work (from his middle period forward, i.e.).

>> No.12312035

>>12311972
Everybody hates analytic philosophy.

>>12312006
/lit/ likes the late Wittgenstein. Analytic philosophy tends to like the logical atomism associated with the early Wittgenstein. Then, even after the Investigations came out, It took analytic philosophy one (arguably two) generations of retarded misinterpreting of them before they started actually understanding Wittgenstein's actual intent, by which point arch-Heideggerians like Bourdieu, Ricoeur, and various hybrid continentals like Rorty had already been understanding him much more easily. Late Wittgenstein = more continental than analytic.

>> No.12312275

>>12312012
I feel almost sorry for the guy, but if your dishonest as him in your thinking you'll get what you deserve in life

>> No.12312323

>>12312012
So this is what atheism has to offer. It really makes you think.

>> No.12312467

>>12311427
Honestly, no. Just be sceptical of any statements which are direct quotes. Maybe not ideal for someone brand new to philosophy, but fine if you have some basic background in all eras.

>> No.12312475

>>12311427
no, take /lit/ opinions on this book with a grain of salt, russell went after nietzsche and they’re still seething

>> No.12312490

>>12312475
Yeah, and he also wildly misrepresented Aristotle and Aquinas.

>> No.12312508

>>12311436
This. A lot of people seem to forget/don't know that Russell wholeheartedly started writing pop philosophy books whenever his actual influence in the academy waned which was rather quick because the theory of descriptions is fucking stupid. Copleston is your standard text used in most History of Philosophy grad courses.

>> No.12312513

>>12312035
no idea about bourdieu or ricoeur but rorty's proper understanding of wittgenstein's intent didn't really come until the 21st century, there are plenty of analytics who had lucid understanding of late w's idea well before then

>> No.12312632

>>12311427
Nope. He's a very talented polymath.

>> No.12312659

>>12312467
Are not* direct quotes

>> No.12312694

>>12312632
Heh. Like the irony.

>> No.12312710

>>12312632
So talented he could evidently get away with not having to know what he was speaking about- as becomes painfully obvious over and over again. Slapdash garbage by an otherwise brilliant man is still garbage, anon. Read more.

>> No.12312723

Its a perfectly good book, though it should be called "berties take on western philosophers"

Hes kind of funny and charming to. Dont take it so seriously, one way or the other. There are perfectly good arguments within it, some of which are nice challeneges to the reader.

>> No.12312756

>>12311427
>Did I make a mistake when I bought
yes