Any history of philosophy book recommendations?

[Anonymous No.16713120]

I've been interested in getting into Deleuze and other contemporary philosophers yet I've never read philosophy consistently. What are some good books on the history of philosophy for begginers that want to get into contemporary stuff?

[Anonymous No.16713142]

masterpieces of world philosophy

[Anonymous No.16713411]

>>16713120
A New History of Western Philosophy by Anthony Kenny

[Anonymous No.16713438]

>>16713120
Whatever you do, don't read Bertrand Russel's history.

[Anonymous No.16713564]

copleston

anthony kenny is very bad for nonanalytic phil

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9GwT4_YRZdBf9nIUHs0zjrnUVl-KBNSM

[Anonymous No.16714419]

I concur with that other anon on copleston. Can be read by a begginer yet he doesnt dumb it down, good range of texts. The 11 volume series will take you a while but by the end you will be decently versed in philosophy

[Anonymous No.16714458]

>>16713564
>>16714419
>recommending copleston to a beginner
pseud detected

[Anonymous No.16714768]

>>16714458
Copleston is totally comprehensible for someone starting out

[Anonymous No.16714823]

>>16713564
>>16714768
>>16714458

Copleston is generally good, but you have to keep in mind that he did not have access to the vast amount of scholarship done since his time. His treatment of philosophy in late antiquity is notably scant from what I remember. The best series of books that fill the gaps would be the Cambridge History of Philosophy series. Sadly, no one really recommends these, as they are longer than even the 11 volumes of Copleston. Each book contains a large bibliography to follow up on, and has been authored by multiple scholars. They're the go-to source if you want to find out the best editions of the primary sources and important secondary works.

[Anonymous No.16714837]

>>16714823
read their kierkegaard guides and they sucked. they seemed allergic to mentioning anything religious and so were totally inadequate for kierk. unless you are talking about a different series, what I read was the cambridge companion

[Anonymous No.16714846]

>>16713120
Why wouldn’t you drink straight from the source itself?

[Anonymous No.16714858]

If you want a very quick tldr with some ficccion in there but a fun easy read, I suggest a story of philosophy. Otherwise just start with the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.16714895]

>>16714837
Companions are notoriously uneven. Typical victim of the age of bureaucracy, no quality control, leave everything to whatever individual professor is assigned to be editor. Corners cut all the time. Sometimes questionable inclusions, or no attempt to present a systematic view of the subject, instead just getting as many "known name" professors to contribute even if their viewpoints totally clash.

If you ever want to know what being a prof looks like, imagine a 55 year old man writing one of the essays in those companion things, down to the wire, in exactly the same way you do/did as an undergrad.

[Anonymous No.16714907]

>>16714895
That being said, some of the contributions are really great. So you just have to go case by case. Read them for topical essays you need but don't look at them as cover to cover reads.

Lots of fluff in them too sometimes. Like "Feminist perspective on...." shit nobody asked for or wanted except the HR dept of the publisher.

[Anonymous No.16714948]

>>16714837
Oh, the "Cambridge Companion to..." books weren't really what I was taking about in that post, I recommended picrelated.

[Anonymous No.16715018]

>>16714948
>>16714895
my mistake, thanks

[Anonymous No.16715832]

>>16713120
>What are some good books on the history of philosophy for begginers that want to get into contemporary stuff?
Peter Adamson's series A History of Philosophy without any Gaps

https://historyofphilosophy.net/all-episodes

https://b-ok.cc/book/2656575/fb88ca
https://b-ok.cc/book/2638746/ca4ebd
https://b-ok.cc/book/2854022/4d9cb7

[Anonymous No.16715852]

>>16714846
Not everyone has a stomach for raw warm milk straight out of the teat.

[Anonymous No.16715895]

>>16714823
I'm almost done with Copleston's volume on the Greeks and I concur, his biggest weakness is just age. He cites sources like Zeller, Stace, etc. often which are AFAIK great for their time, but a bit outdated re:historical accuracy and purportedly do things like read Christian ideas back into Plato which can distort things. Copleston himself isn't guilty of this though, and freely admits it when the evidence we have is not strong enough to stay either this happened or it didn't happen. He does however give a chronology of Plato's works which is obviously outdated and doesn't reflect the current consensus that we can't be sure about any of it, besides some really obvious things like the trial of Socrates was written in his youth while stuff like the Laws came near his death.

In a way it's more historical than philosophical, since he goes through the actual ideas of most thinkers rather briefly, and his style definitely leaves some room for ambiguity. That's probably why anon called him "incomprehensible for a beginner", but if you spend time thinking about each set of ideas things should clear up. It's a little dated, but definitely still a solid introduction to the Greek thinkers.

[Anonymous No.16715940]

A Short History of Modern Philosophy:
https://b-ok.cc/book/3671449/ba87d0

A Quick History of Philosophy:
https://www.philosophybasics.com/general_quick_history.html

[Anonymous No.16717236]

The Story of Philosophy