Talk:History of Western Philosophy (Russell)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To do:

1. Get information from Russell's autobiography (the current information comes from the second volume of Monk's biography).
2. Fill out description of book - areas covered, weaknesses (e.g. Kant), etc.
3. Reviews and criticisms.

--  ajn (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Bryan Magee is very disparaging of this book in his "Confessions of a Philosopher". But he really liked Russell and agreed with his views on Wittgenstein I and II. Magee is very much a Kantian and it is in this respect that he mainly finds fault with Russell, and especially this book. As Magee is a significant populariser of philosophy, as well as a providing the standard work on Schopenhauer, his views should be noted. He suggets this work was a rushed work aimed at the adult education market and dilutes heavy, but important, aspects of philosophy. Magee suggests other works by Russell are far superior to this.User:mal4mac

The opinions of Wittgensteinians on Russell are completely predictable, and therefore add no information, however pungently expressed. Septentrionalis 02:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The review by Smythies is, however, typical of the reaction of others at the time - Monk says Broad was extremely disparaging, for example, despite being otherwise an admirer of Russell, and I've seen other contemporary reviews along the same lines, some from people with no axe to grind. I'll try to dig out some reviews and opinions by others - Isaiah Berlin's quoted on the back of my copy (and Monk too, a glowing recommendation). The common criticism of his treatment of Kant, Hegel etc is not that he dismissed them, it's that he misrepresented them - again, I'll try to find sources (Scruton is one, I think). Born didn't thank Russell for leaving out Husserl and Heidegger, his letter said something along the lines of "I suppose you didn't think it worth including them" (he calls Heidegger's philosophy "disgusting"). --  ajn (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Having looked up the Autobiography, I support the present wording on Born; and would have made the same changes. Thanks. Septentrionalis

Durant had chapters on Croce, Spencer, and Santayana; none on Byron, although he quotes him several times, and has much the same interest in relations between philosophy and culture as Russell. Otherwise the same set of moderns. Finding the omission of Kierkegaard, Heidegger and Husserl odd feels to me like temporal provincialism. (Heidegger was younger than Russell, Husserl the same age as Dewey; so we could leave the passage out, and it would follow from what has already been said.) Septentrionalis 03:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The subtitle has certainly disappeared from the Simon and Schuster paperback; I'm not sure whether the distinction is early/late or English/American. In any case, the subtitle belongs in the article, as a guide to Russell's intentions. Septentrionalis 16:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The subtitle's also gone from my Routledge (UK) edition, so I suspect it's an early/late thing (though my edition seems to be a copy of a fairly old printing, judging by the quality of the type). The Monk quote's from the back cover, if it's also in his biography of BR I wasn't able to find it there. --  ajn (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I think Russell's environment, however, was Hegelian rather than Kantian; a philosopher who believed in Kant and not in Hegel would be regarded as desperately old-fashioned. See Wm James: The Bloc Universe for the American version. Septentrionalis 01:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Wittgenstein & Russell bitter rivals?? Who wrote this crap? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.240.128.75 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I read this article because I was curious about Russell's History; a number of historical articles (History of science; Pre-experimental science) citing it seemed really out of line. Seeing the criticism section, I noticed there were no reviews by historians so went looking for some. I was surprised that the two I checked were both so strongly negative. I added passages from both but if they seem redundant, drop one (but at least one should stay). --SteveMcCluskey 03:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC); revised 13:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's time to move on a little bit more. The article has included blurby negative quotes, but I believe we should head straight to the specifics. His capacity for uninformed bias is remarkable, and the section on Aristotle's logic is so biased and dumb I can't belive it's Russell's. There is so much steaming bullshit in this book, that given its popularity it has been a genocidal weapon on the interested laymen.

201.19.139.187 23:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)