Is this a good introduction? Do I need a lot of background? What other recommendations do you have on the topic?

>>24517376 (OP)
Do not read it, it is shit. Probably one of the worst books ever written. He misrepresents every philosopher he doesn't like, i.e. everyone except Hume.

How come it has such a good rating then?

>>24517376 (OP)
I'm also interested in introductions to philosophy but not this one

>>24517376 (OP)
Just read it, ignore these faggots, he probably shits on christcucks that's why they hate him.

>>24517399
Because it's well written and funny; it also has a decidedly reddit-aligned point of view. The problem is that almost everything he says is wrong. It was kind of neat to see how the guy who helped start Analytic philosophy, which saw itself as a rejection of German idealism, had about as much of an understanding of Kant and Hegel as any shitposter on /lit/. If you started a thread here with Russell's objections against the Aesthetic you would have about a dozen autists within minutes explaining how you got filtered.

>>24517408
The schizo pseuds are angry because Russell absolutely excoriates Hegel.

>>24517376 (OP)
No, Russell, for whatever strengths and merits he had as a mathematician and logician, was not a scholar of philosophers, excepting Leibniz (his book on Leibniz is very good). He wrote this to frankly make money, and, while written in an engaging and witty way, it's clearly Russell just sharing his opinions and musings over quick and sometimes very partial readings. One gets the impression sometimes that he didn't read some of the philosophers he discusses, but rather encyclopedia or textbook summaries.

A stronger alternative is Copleston. Copleston, while a Catholic, makes a valiant effort to give each thinker their due. His work is split into multiple volumes, so one way to use him is to select a volume for whatever period you're interested in.

>>24517380
He misrepresents Hume too actually. He writes as if Hume never wrote Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, particularly the very important 12th chapter where he expresses the practical need for limits on skepticism.

>>24517415
My favorite part is when he attacks Aquinas for always towing the line of the Catholic Church when apparently the only work of Aquinas' that Russell looked at was the ST, which is all about theology and of course only defends/explains dogma. Aquinas wrote many purely philosophical works but Russell ignores them. His attacks on Aristotelian logic are so bad that they are what got me into the Organon ('there's no way Aristotle was actually that retarded, let me study this for myself'). A great Fichte scholar, Breazeale, got into Fichte in a similar way, because Russell's criticisms were so over the top it was hard to believe they were accurate (and of course they are not).

I recommend you end your life and stop spamming the board for the 50th time.

>>24517419
And Neetzche

>There is a great deal in Nietzsche that must be dismissed as merely megalomaniac… It is obvious that in his day-dreams he is a warrior, not a professor; all the men he admires were military. His opinion of women, like every man’s, is an objectification of his own emotion towards them, which is obviously one of fear. “Forget not thy whip”–but nine women out of ten would get the whip away from him, and he knew it, so he kept away from women, and soothed his wounded vanity with unkind remarks.

>He condemns Christian love because he thinks it is an outcome of fear… It does not occur to Nietzsche as possible that a man should genuinely feel universal love, obviously because he himself feels almost universal hatred and fear, which he would fain disguise as lordly indifference. His “noble” man–who is himself in day-dreams–is a being wholly devoid of sympathy, ruthless, cunning, concerned only with his own power. King Lear, on the verge of madness, says: “I will do such things–what they are yet I know not–but they shall be the terror of the earth.” This is Nietzsche’s philosophy in a nutshell.

>For my part, I agree with Buddha as I have imagined him. But I do not know how to prove that he is right by any argument such as can be used in a mathematical or a scientific question. I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die. But I think the ultimate argument against his philosophy, as against any unpleasant but internally self-consistent ethic, lies not in an appeal to facts, but in an appeal to the emotions. Nietzsche despises universal love; I feel it the motive power to all that I desire as regards the world. His followers have had their innings, but we may hope that it is coming rapidly to an end.

>>24517419
I don't like Hegel either but I don't need to make up stories about what he thought.

Is there anyone who says everything right?

enough about russel what are some good introduction books to philosophy that aren't some huge history series.

Russel was responsible for purging hegel from the anglosphere, some have never forgiven him for that and continue to besmirch his name.

>>24517438
I believe that I will not listen to this pencil-limbed schoolboy about how ackshually women‘s lib is my own strength and love does conquer power (while we live in the result of his particular brand of "pacifism")

>>24517490
Seriously, Copleston. You don't have to read every volume, but it's the only set that doesn't fuck everyone up according to Analytic prejudices. If you're looking for something way shorter but still able to give you an idea, try either Stanley Rosen's "The Philosopher's Handbook" or David Roochnik's "Thinking Philosophically: An Introduction to the Great Debates."

>>24517502
isn't copleston more of a reference than an introduction? not to mention how expensive these volumes are and you can't even buy them new

>>24517376 (OP)
it was the first book of its kind even though it's flawed

>>24517505
Mmm no, it's an introduction to western phil in the form of a history (just like Russell's)

>>24517490
All of the introductions suck. I agree with the other that Copleston is best as far as this goes but you can't understand a great philosopher in 50 pages, at best you'll have a more or less distorted understanding of the philosopher's conclusions. The conclusions are the least important part, it's the reasoning that matters, and most philosophers already write in a very concise way, so you're missing almost all of that in an introduction. The best way to into philosophy is to study Aristotle starting with the Categories. It'll take you about 18 months to work through the corpus, you must read each work multiple times, and read them all backwards and forwards. At that point you'll have enough of a grounding to make your own decision about where to go from there. It's better to understand one philosopher well than to have a half-assed understanding of many philosophers.

lives and opinions of eminent philosophers available on gutenberg
that's like the main source for the beliefs of ancient greek philosophers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_Laertius

>>24517518
philosophies of ancient greek philosophers

>>24517514
>It's better to understand one philosopher well than to have a half-assed understanding of many philosophers.
what if I want to read a fun philosopher like Nietzsche, not boring shit? does the same apply?

>>24517505
No, it's a straight up history with attempts to explain context for each figure and show how they build off of or divert away from each other.

Don't forget you can dl these books.

History of Philosophy, vol. 1 Greece and Rome

>>24517438
His criticism of misogyny as some psychogenic emotional projection is retarded because he proceeds to do literally the same shit. If we're going to stigmatize people projecting emotions into their worldview, then he would have not written any of those other excerpts as they are fundamentally emotionally based values such as the avoidance of men dying in wars and equal rights for women and universal love. Not very "2+2=4" of you, Russel.

>>24517376 (OP)
Hes a leftist

>>24517376 (OP)
Read him.
>>24517380
>misrepresents
Those are his views on those philosophers. And the fact that he holds opinions that are what one could say heterodox are a good thing because it sheds light on the fact that every single history of philosophy is the author's representation of a said philosopher/school of thought.
If anything, it is a great start, if you aren't a gullible reader that believes in everything that you read without any second thought.

>>24517695
>Those are his views on those philosophers. And the fact that he holds opinions that are what one could say heterodox are a good thing because it sheds light on the fact that every single history of philosophy is the author's representation of a said philosopher/school of thought.
It's not a matter of him disagreeing with them, it's that he actually does not know what these philosophers said.
>If anything, it is a great start, if you aren't a gullible reader that believes in everything that you read without any second thought.
It's a terrible start and you are a gullible reader.

>>24517702
No, not really, his read on Plato is spot on and a lot of platonists get butthurt about it, because he is probably right. You trying to discredit his views is yet another proof that he has a point.
>It's a terrible start and you are a gullible reader.
It is not. And that also holds for everything that everyone says. Including mine and your post. That said, what are your intentions? Do you think that OP is a retard that can't read things by himself and get another book to check entries on different philosophers?
You are a retard and take others for retards. I'm done with this.

>>24517376 (OP)
How does this compare?

How does this compare?

>>24517720
What, nothing? Infinitely superior.

>>24517415
russel spoke fluent german and was originally a hegelian. The idea that he didn't understand kant and hegel is nonsense

>>24517722
>an entire chapter devoted to Voltaire
>an entire chapter devoted to Schopenhauer
>an entire chapter devoted to Hebert Spencer, who wasn't even a philosopher
>an entire chapter devoted to Benedetto Croce, who wasn't even a philosopher
>0 medievals
It's absolute shit.

>>24517724
A bald assertion from someone who probably has never read Kant and definitely has not read Hegel. Ask any scholar of German idealism what they think of Russell's takes.
>spoke fluent german
So does my little brother and he doesn't know anything about Kant or Hegel either.

>>24517734
>0 medievals
Theology is distinct from philosophy

>>24517734
>It's absolute shit.
So's Bertrand Russell's book. Which one's less shit?

>>24517734
but have you read it?

>>24517376 (OP)
Yeah. Will Durants story of philosophy and the passion of the western mind by Richard tarnas are also good introductions.

>>24517376 (OP)
If you would rather have some kind of academic consensus texts on philosophers, check Stanford's SEP. They are great, start with the greeks and move on with it.

>>24517739
Retard take, all of them wrote about pure philosophy.

>>24517737
the bald assertion is that russel didn't understand Kant and Hegel when he studied them in university while speaking the language fluently under teachers who also spoke fluent german and were themselves hegelians

>>24517774
You can read what he says in the book and compare it to what Kant and Hegel say, and how most/all scholars interpret Kant and Hegel. I can do this anyway, you can't. So keep asserting 'he simply *must* have known them well!' until you're blue in the face. Honestly man claiming that Russell's reading of Hegel is good is a completely losing battle. You're an idiot for even starting this argument.

>>24517783
I didn't make a claim, you made a claim. I just said your claim was nonsense(which i guess is a claim)

It is very possible that this book changed my life, I don't even remember a word of it aside from John the Scot
>>24517636
That's funny, I'm reading this now and I just finished the introduction which reminded me of the book

>>24517376 (OP)
/thread

>>24517376 (OP)
There has never been a 'philosopher' more disingenuous than this 'man'

>>24517376 (OP)
it's a bunch of fart sniffing. honestly sleep inducing.

>>24517641
>Not very "2+2=4" of you, Russel.
>But I think the ultimate argument against his philosophy, as against any unpleasant but internally self-consistent ethic, lies not in an appeal to facts, but in an appeal to the emotions.

Have you tried reading?

how come he is so famous?

>>24518201
That just means he is a very skeptical person. I don't see anything wrong with that, after all, there are very few things in life that we can be certain of.

>>24518653
anglos thought he was god

>>24517438
>“Forget not thy whip”–but nine women out of ten would get the whip away from him,
kek. I dropped his History of Western Phil midway through the Aristotle section but this is based.

>>24518747
That's still less bad than 9 women out of 10 cucking Russell.

by the way, nobody in the thread saying not to read it has ever actually read it.

>>24517695
>every single history of philosophy is the author's representation of a said philosopher/school of thought.
That's no excuse

>>24518748
Which woman cucked russell? He was the one who was having affairs during his marriages ( at least during two of his marriages if I remember correctly)

>>24518807
His 2nd wife, Dora, cucked him repeatedly. She even had two kids from another guy while she was married to Russell.

>>24517415
Imagine getting filtered by Bertrand Russell of all authors. Astonishing.

>>24518850
When you play the game, you take some Ls, but the man was certainly a player.

>>24517490
I always recommend this