What do you think?
Rate this book
A History of Western Philosophy #1-3
鬲丕乇賷禺 賮賱爻賮赖 睾乇亘
Since its first publication in 1945 Lord Russell's A History of Western Philosophy has been universally acclaimed as the outstanding one-volume work on the subject鈥攗nparalleled in its comprehensiveness, its clarity, its erudition, its grace and wit. In seventy-six chapters he traces philosophy from the rise of Greek civilization to the emergence of logical analysis in the twentieth century. Among the philosophers considered Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, the Atomists, Protagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Cynics, the Sceptics, the Epicureans, the Stoics, Plotinus, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Benedict, Gregory the Great, John the Scot, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, William of Occam, Machiavelli, Erasmus, More, Bacon, Hobbes, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, the Utilitarians, Marx, Bergson, James, Dewey, and lastly the philosophers with whom Lord Russell himself is most closely associated -- Cantor, Frege, and Whitehead, co-author with Russell of the monumental Principia Mathematica.
1079 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1945
7,774 people are currently reading
125k people want to read
About the author
Bertrand Russell
951听books7,113听followersBertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS, was a Welsh philosopher, historian, logician, mathematician, advocate for social reform, pacifist, and prominent rationalist. Although he was usually regarded as English, as he spent the majority of his life in England, he was born in Wales, where he also died.
He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought."
He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,522 reviews
January 12, 2012
There's a throwaway remark in this book which has haunted me ever since I read it some time in the mid-70s. Russell is talking about Socrates, and he wonders if Socrates actually existed. Maybe Plato made him up.
"I don't think many people would have been able to make up Socrates," muses Russell. "But Plato could have done it."
It's hard not to continue this line of reasoning. If Socrates turns out to be fictional, who else is? And which fictional characters of today will later be accepted as historical persons? The more you think about it, the more you start feeling that the world really is a Philip K. Dick novel.
"I don't think many people would have been able to make up Socrates," muses Russell. "But Plato could have done it."
It's hard not to continue this line of reasoning. If Socrates turns out to be fictional, who else is? And which fictional characters of today will later be accepted as historical persons? The more you think about it, the more you start feeling that the world really is a Philip K. Dick novel.
April 15, 2015
A Critical (& Patronizing) Survey of Western Philosophy
Russell is consistently opinionated throughout his presentation and it might confuse some of the readers that he is so casual in writing off some of the major philosophers and their key ideas. This is because the book is not a mere history of philosophy, a mere account of ideas, by any stretch. Instead it is a critical survey, a long catalogue of what Russell agrees and disagrees with among all the major doctrines. The format followed is: a brief historical sketch to give context to a doctrine, an even briefer explanation, and then a long critical take that will put forward Russell鈥檚 opinions, usually about why it is misguided in the light of modern scientific approach. And more often than not, he is wary of those ideas which, from the point of view of his war-torn present, seemed 'dangerous.'
In fact, I think that three strands of vexation can be discerned:
1. Leading to orthodoxy in religion
2. Leading to rigidity in logic
3. Leading to Totalitarian fantasies
Any idea which Russell felt was tending towards these were roundly attacked and put in place. Must have felt like a humanitarian act, writing this book! After all, the long stretch of time that allowed Russell to undertake the tome was granted him by a stay in prison 鈥� his crime was distributing pacifist literature during the First World War. 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.
If you were to attempt a history of philosophy, you can write a history without imposing on the reader what your own opinions are. Or you can write a history just to let the reader know exactly what you (as a thinker of some standing yourself, you might add!) think of each philosopher. Or you can write a history and try to justify why you prefer some, even one, more than the others.
Russell has opted to for a mix of the last two options 鈥� and he prefers himself over all others, that鈥檚 all!
As the book progresses it becomes more and more clear that it is a summary of Russell鈥檚 views, and not of the philosophers being discussed. This means that most of them gets short shrift. And as we approach modern times it is amusing to see how Russell is almost impatient for the history to quickly reach and culminate in his own position of Logical Positivism, which he clearly thinks is the best approach to philosophy and in the light of which he judges everyone else. This allows him to narrate the entire historical progress in a patronizing and all-knowing tone that might be jarring to a reader who is not willing to take the same attitude towards Russell鈥檚 own naivete!
You have to out-patronize the patronizing author to enjoy this fully. That is the trick. And if you do, there is no end of fun to be had form this eminently readable epic.
April 25, 2025
I stole this off my father's shelves many years ago. The indications on the inside cover was that he read it in Finland in 1959 - I think he once missed a train there and the next one wasn't for a week.
It's true that this is in many respects a heavy, dry, and testing read. On the other hand it's full of interesting anecdotes about the philosophers themselves, from the earliest of ancient Greeks to Russell's contemporaries in the 20th century. And Russell, a mathematician of the highest order as well as a starred philosopher is a clear and concise writer, careful to present each person's work in the context of its time, and showing how to some extent such philosophy shaped and refined the period it came from. Moreover the author's wit shows through on most pages and he has a definite way with words.
Just as we have authors today writing to make the most esoteric physics accessible to the layman through intelligent precis and analogy, Russell appears to have been a populist of his time. This is very definitely an introduction, a guide, a setting of the development of philosophy through a string of individuals and schools, rather than a thorough examination of any particular one of them. It is likely one of the most accessible of serious works on philosophy, but given the era that produced it (1940s) and the elevation of its author, it will place demands on the reader.
It ends (if I remember correctly) with a summary of his own work in Principia Mathematica and a fascinating account of how Godel undermined Russell's masterwork twenty years later.
Very well worth reading.
...
It's true that this is in many respects a heavy, dry, and testing read. On the other hand it's full of interesting anecdotes about the philosophers themselves, from the earliest of ancient Greeks to Russell's contemporaries in the 20th century. And Russell, a mathematician of the highest order as well as a starred philosopher is a clear and concise writer, careful to present each person's work in the context of its time, and showing how to some extent such philosophy shaped and refined the period it came from. Moreover the author's wit shows through on most pages and he has a definite way with words.
Just as we have authors today writing to make the most esoteric physics accessible to the layman through intelligent precis and analogy, Russell appears to have been a populist of his time. This is very definitely an introduction, a guide, a setting of the development of philosophy through a string of individuals and schools, rather than a thorough examination of any particular one of them. It is likely one of the most accessible of serious works on philosophy, but given the era that produced it (1940s) and the elevation of its author, it will place demands on the reader.
It ends (if I remember correctly) with a summary of his own work in Principia Mathematica and a fascinating account of how Godel undermined Russell's masterwork twenty years later.
Very well worth reading.
...
October 31, 2021
A History of Western Philosophy And Its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, Bertrand Russell
A History of Western Philosophy is a 1945 book by philosopher Bertrand Russell. A survey of Western philosophy from the pre-Socratic philosophers to the early 20th century, it was criticised for Russell's over-generalization and omissions, particularly from the post-Cartesian period, but nevertheless became a popular and commercial success, and has remained in print from its first publication.
When Russell was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1950, A History of Western Philosophy was cited as one of the books that won him the award. Its success provided Russell with financial security for the last part of his life.
Content: Ancient Philosophy; Catholic Philosophy; and Modern Philosophy.
鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 乇賵夭 趩賴丕乇賲 賲丕賴 丌賵乇蹖賱 爻丕賱1978賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賮賱爻賮赖 睾乇亘 賵 乇賵丕亘胤 丌賳 亘丕 丕賵囟丕毓 爻蹖丕爻蹖 賵 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 丕夭 賯丿蹖賲 鬲丕 丕賲乇賵夭貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 亘乇鬲乇丕賳丿 乇丕爻賱貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 賳噩賮 丿乇蹖丕亘賳丿乇蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 爻禺賳貙 爻丕賱1340貨 丿乇 爻賴 噩賱丿: 噩賱丿 賳禺爻鬲: 賮賱爻賮赖 賯丿蹖賲貨 噩賱丿 丿賵賲: 賮賱爻賮赖 賯乇賵賳 賵爻胤蹖貨 噩賱丿 爻賵賲: 賮賱爻賮赖 噩丿蹖丿貨 趩丕倬 丿蹖诏乇: 鬲亘乇蹖夭貙 亘賴賲賳貙 爻丕賱1345貨 趩丕倬 丿蹖诏乇: 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 亘蹖爻鬲 賵 倬賳噩 卮賴乇蹖賵乇貙 爻丕賱1348貨 趩丕倬 丿蹖诏乇: 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 倬乇賵丕夭貨 爻丕賱1351貨 丿乇 丿賵 噩賱丿貙 爻丕賱1365貨 趩丕倬 卮卮賲 爻丕賱1373貨 賲賵囟賵毓 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賮賱爻賮赖 蹖 睾乇亘 丕夭 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 亘乇蹖鬲丕賳蹖丕 - 爻丿賴 20賲
卮乇丨 賳賯丕丿丕賳賴 蹖 芦鬲丕乇蹖禺 賮賱爻賮赖禄 丿乇 睾乇亘貙 丕夭 賴夭丕乇賴 蹖 賳禺爻鬲 倬蹖卮 丕夭 賲蹖賱丕丿 賲爻蹖丨貙 鬲丕 丕賵丕爻胤 爻丿賴 蹖 亘蹖爻鬲賲 賲蹖賱丕丿蹖貨 噩賳丕亘 芦賳噩賮 丿乇蹖丕亘賳丿乇蹖禄 丿乇 倬蹖卮诏賮鬲丕乇 禺賵丿 亘乇 讴鬲丕亘 賲蹖鈥屬嗁堐屫迟嗀�: (丕丨爻丕爻 禺賵丕賳卮诏乇 鬲丕乇蹖禺 芦乇丕爻賱禄貙 賴賲丕賳賳丿 丕丨爻丕爻 噩賵丕賳 讴賳噩讴丕賵蹖爻鬲貙 讴賴 賴賲乇丕賴 倬丿乇 爻鬲蹖賴賳丿賴貙 賵 夭亘丕賳鈥� 丌賵乇 禺賵丿貙 亘賴 丿蹖丿丕乇 亘夭乇诏丕賳 鬲丕乇蹖禺 鬲賮讴乇 賲蹖乇賵丿貙 賵 亘賴 诏賮鬲诏賵蹖 倬乇丨乇丕乇鬲 倬丿乇貙 亘丕 丌賳賴丕 诏賵卮 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 賵 亘爻蹖丕乇 趩蹖夭賴丕 - 趩賴 丕夭 亘丕亘 賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 賮賱爻賮蹖貙 賵 趩賴 丕夭 亘丕亘 卮蹖賵賴鈥� 賴丕蹖 噩丿賱 - 賲蹖鈥屫①呝堌藏�.)貨 芦鬲丕乇蹖禺 賮賱爻賮赖鈥� 蹖 睾乇亘禄貙 亘丕夭賳賵蹖爻蹖 爻賱爻賱賴 丿乇爻鈥屬囏й屰� 丕爻鬲貙 讴賴 芦乇丕爻賱禄 丕夭 爻丕賱1940賲蹖賱丕丿蹖貙 鬲丕 爻丕賱1943賲蹖賱丕丿蹖貙 丿乇 芦丌賲乇蹖讴丕禄 丿丕丿賴 亘賵丿賳丿貙 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 鬲丕亘爻鬲丕賳 爻丕賱1944賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 賵 丿乇 芦丕賳诏賱爻鬲丕賳禄貙 亘乇丕蹖 丕賳鬲卮丕乇 丌賲丕丿賴 卮丿
讴鬲丕亘 丕夭 爻賴 賮氐賱 鬲卮讴蹖賱 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲: 芦賮賱爻賮赖 賯丿蹖賲禄貨 芦賮賱爻賮赖 賯乇賵賳 賵爻胤蹖禄貨 芦賮賱爻賮赖 毓氐乇 噩丿蹖丿禄貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 讴賵卮蹖丿賴 丕爻鬲 鬲丕 丿乇 賴乇 賮氐賱 亘賴 丕賵囟丕毓 賮讴乇蹖 賮賱丕爻賮賴 賵 倬蹖卮乇賮鬲 毓賱賲 賮賱爻賮赖 丿乇 賲蹖丕賳 噩賵丕賲毓 賵 鬲讴丕賲賱 丌賳貙 亘倬乇丿丕夭丿貙 賵 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賮賱爻賮赖 乇丕 亘丕 乇賵卮蹖 賳賯丕丿丕賳賴貙 賲賵乇丿 鬲丨賱蹖賱 賵 賳賯丿 賯乇丕乇 丿賴丿
丿乇 亘禺卮 賳禺爻鬲貙 鬲丕乇蹖禺 倬蹖丿丕蹖卮 賮賱爻賮赖 丕夭 丿賵乇丕賳 倬蹖卮 丕夭 芦爻賯乇丕胤禄 賵 倬蹖卮 丕夭 乇卮丿 賵賴賲賴鈥� 诏蹖乇蹖 賮賱爻賮赖 丿乇 芦蹖賵賳丕賳禄 丌睾丕夭 卮丿賴貙 鬲丕 芦爻賯乇丕胤禄貙 芦丕賮賱丕胤賵賳禄 賵 芦丕乇爻胤賵禄 丕丿丕賲賴 賲蹖鈥屰屫жㄘ� (讴賴 賲賴賲鈥屫臂屬� 亘禺卮 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 賮氐賱 賳禺爻鬲 賳蹖夭 賴賲蹖賳 賲亘丨孬 丕爻鬲) 賵 爻乇丕賳噩丕賲 亘丨孬 亘丕 賮賱丕爻賮賴 倬爻 丕夭 芦丕乇爻胤賵禄 亘賴 倬丕蹖丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫必池�
亘禺卮 丿賵賲貨 亘賴 賮賱爻賮赖 丿乇 丿賵乇丕賳 爻蹖胤乇賴 蹖 讴賱蹖爻丕 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 丕賳丿貙 丿賵乇丕賳 讴賱蹖爻丕 賵 毓氐乇 诏爻鬲乇卮 賲爻蹖丨蹖鬲 丿乇 丕乇賵倬丕貙 賴賲丕賳 丿賵乇丕賳蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賲丕 亘賴 賱丨丕馗 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 亘丕 毓賳賵丕賳 芦賯乇賵賳 賵爻胤蹖 (爻丿賴 賴丕蹖 賲蹖丕賳蹖)禄 賲蹖鈥屫促嗀ж驰屬呚� 丿乇 丌賳 丿賵乇丕賳 亘丕 賵噩賵丿 禺賮賯丕賳 爻蹖丕爻蹖 賵 賲匕賴亘蹖 丿乇 睾乇亘貙 丕賲丕 丕賳诏卮鬲 卮賲丕乇 賮蹖賱爻賵賮丕賳蹖貙 倬丕蹖 亘賴 毓乇氐賴 蹖 賴賲蹖賳 诏蹖鬲蹖 賳賴丕丿賳丿貨 丕賲丕 賳讴鬲賴 噩丕賱亘 鬲賵噩賴 丿乇 亘丕乇賴 蹖 芦爻丿賴 賴丕蹖 賲蹖丕賳蹖禄 丌賳 丕爻鬲貙 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 丿賵乇丕賳貙 賴乇趩賳丿 睾乇亘 丿乇 丕賳丨胤丕胤 賮讴乇蹖 賯乇丕乇 丿丕卮鬲貙 賵賱蹖 卮乇賯 丿乇 丕賵噩 亘賵丿貨 丿丕賳卮賲賳丿丕賳 丕蹖乇丕賳蹖 賵 丕爻賱丕賲蹖貙 賵 賮賱丕爻賮賴 亘夭乇诏 丕蹖乇丕賳蹖貙 賳馗蹖乇 芦爻賴乇賵乇丿蹖禄 賵 芦丕亘賳鈥屫驰屬嗀� 丿乇 丌賳 夭賲丕賳 丿乇 賲卮乇賯鈥� 夭賲蹖賳 丨丕囟乇 亘賵丿賳丿貨 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 丕诏乇 丕蹖乇丕賳鈥� 賵 噩賴丕賳 賲卮乇賯貙 丿乇 丌賳 丿賵乇丕賳 亘賴 倬蹖卮乇賮鬲 丕丿丕賲賴 賳賲蹖鈥屫ж� 賴賲诏蹖 丿爻鬲丕賵乇丿賴丕蹖 毓賱賲蹖 賵 賮賱爻賮蹖 丿賳蹖丕蹖 讴賴賳 丕夭 亘蹖賳 賲蹖鈥屫辟佖� 卮乇賯 丿乇 丕蹖賳 丿賵乇丕賳 倬賱蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丕賳鬲賯丕賱 芦賮賱爻賮赖 蹖賵賳丕賳 亘丕爻鬲丕賳禄 亘賴 丿賳蹖丕蹖 睾乇亘 賯賱賲丿丕丿 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�
亘禺卮 爻賵賲 賵 倬丕蹖丕賳蹖 讴鬲丕亘貙 亘賴 亘乇乇爻蹖 賮蹖賱爻賵賮丕賳 噩丿蹖丿貙 丿乇 丿賵乇丕賳 倬爻 丕夭 乇賳爻丕賳爻 丿乇 睾乇亘貙 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 丕賳丿貨 丿乇 丕蹖賳 亘禺卮貙 賮賱丕爻賮賴 蹖 亘夭乇诏賵丕乇貙 丕夭 芦丕爻倬蹖賳賵夭丕禄 鬲丕 芦丿讴丕乇鬲禄貙 賵 丕夭 芦乇賵爻賵禄 賵 芦賴诏賱禄貙 鬲丕 芦卮賵倬賳賴丕賵乇禄 賵 芦賳蹖趩賴禄貨 賵鈥ω� 賲賵乇丿 賳賯丿 賯乇丕乇 诏乇賮鬲賴貙 賵 賳馗乇 賴賲诏蹖 丌賳 亘夭乇诏賵丕乇丕賳貙 賲賵乇丿 诏夭丕乇卮 丕蹖卮丕賳 賯乇丕乇 賵 丌乇丕賲 诏乇賮鬲賴 賵 丿乇 讴鬲丕亘 丌乇賲蹖丿賴 丕賳丿貨 鬲丕 亘丕夭 賴賲 丕蹖賳 丿蹖丕乇 賳蹖夭 丕夭 禺賵丕亘 禺賵卮 亘蹖丿丕乇 卮賵丿貨 鬲丕 芦爻賴乇賵丿蹖 賵 倬賵乇爻蹖賳丕禄賴丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇蹖 亘丕夭 賴賲 亘乇賵蹖賳丿
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 25/09/1399賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 08/08/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
A History of Western Philosophy is a 1945 book by philosopher Bertrand Russell. A survey of Western philosophy from the pre-Socratic philosophers to the early 20th century, it was criticised for Russell's over-generalization and omissions, particularly from the post-Cartesian period, but nevertheless became a popular and commercial success, and has remained in print from its first publication.
When Russell was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1950, A History of Western Philosophy was cited as one of the books that won him the award. Its success provided Russell with financial security for the last part of his life.
Content: Ancient Philosophy; Catholic Philosophy; and Modern Philosophy.
鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 乇賵夭 趩賴丕乇賲 賲丕賴 丌賵乇蹖賱 爻丕賱1978賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賮賱爻賮赖 睾乇亘 賵 乇賵丕亘胤 丌賳 亘丕 丕賵囟丕毓 爻蹖丕爻蹖 賵 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 丕夭 賯丿蹖賲 鬲丕 丕賲乇賵夭貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 亘乇鬲乇丕賳丿 乇丕爻賱貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 賳噩賮 丿乇蹖丕亘賳丿乇蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 爻禺賳貙 爻丕賱1340貨 丿乇 爻賴 噩賱丿: 噩賱丿 賳禺爻鬲: 賮賱爻賮赖 賯丿蹖賲貨 噩賱丿 丿賵賲: 賮賱爻賮赖 賯乇賵賳 賵爻胤蹖貨 噩賱丿 爻賵賲: 賮賱爻賮赖 噩丿蹖丿貨 趩丕倬 丿蹖诏乇: 鬲亘乇蹖夭貙 亘賴賲賳貙 爻丕賱1345貨 趩丕倬 丿蹖诏乇: 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 亘蹖爻鬲 賵 倬賳噩 卮賴乇蹖賵乇貙 爻丕賱1348貨 趩丕倬 丿蹖诏乇: 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 倬乇賵丕夭貨 爻丕賱1351貨 丿乇 丿賵 噩賱丿貙 爻丕賱1365貨 趩丕倬 卮卮賲 爻丕賱1373貨 賲賵囟賵毓 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賮賱爻賮赖 蹖 睾乇亘 丕夭 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 亘乇蹖鬲丕賳蹖丕 - 爻丿賴 20賲
卮乇丨 賳賯丕丿丕賳賴 蹖 芦鬲丕乇蹖禺 賮賱爻賮赖禄 丿乇 睾乇亘貙 丕夭 賴夭丕乇賴 蹖 賳禺爻鬲 倬蹖卮 丕夭 賲蹖賱丕丿 賲爻蹖丨貙 鬲丕 丕賵丕爻胤 爻丿賴 蹖 亘蹖爻鬲賲 賲蹖賱丕丿蹖貨 噩賳丕亘 芦賳噩賮 丿乇蹖丕亘賳丿乇蹖禄 丿乇 倬蹖卮诏賮鬲丕乇 禺賵丿 亘乇 讴鬲丕亘 賲蹖鈥屬嗁堐屫迟嗀�: (丕丨爻丕爻 禺賵丕賳卮诏乇 鬲丕乇蹖禺 芦乇丕爻賱禄貙 賴賲丕賳賳丿 丕丨爻丕爻 噩賵丕賳 讴賳噩讴丕賵蹖爻鬲貙 讴賴 賴賲乇丕賴 倬丿乇 爻鬲蹖賴賳丿賴貙 賵 夭亘丕賳鈥� 丌賵乇 禺賵丿貙 亘賴 丿蹖丿丕乇 亘夭乇诏丕賳 鬲丕乇蹖禺 鬲賮讴乇 賲蹖乇賵丿貙 賵 亘賴 诏賮鬲诏賵蹖 倬乇丨乇丕乇鬲 倬丿乇貙 亘丕 丌賳賴丕 诏賵卮 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 賵 亘爻蹖丕乇 趩蹖夭賴丕 - 趩賴 丕夭 亘丕亘 賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 賮賱爻賮蹖貙 賵 趩賴 丕夭 亘丕亘 卮蹖賵賴鈥� 賴丕蹖 噩丿賱 - 賲蹖鈥屫①呝堌藏�.)貨 芦鬲丕乇蹖禺 賮賱爻賮赖鈥� 蹖 睾乇亘禄貙 亘丕夭賳賵蹖爻蹖 爻賱爻賱賴 丿乇爻鈥屬囏й屰� 丕爻鬲貙 讴賴 芦乇丕爻賱禄 丕夭 爻丕賱1940賲蹖賱丕丿蹖貙 鬲丕 爻丕賱1943賲蹖賱丕丿蹖貙 丿乇 芦丌賲乇蹖讴丕禄 丿丕丿賴 亘賵丿賳丿貙 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 鬲丕亘爻鬲丕賳 爻丕賱1944賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 賵 丿乇 芦丕賳诏賱爻鬲丕賳禄貙 亘乇丕蹖 丕賳鬲卮丕乇 丌賲丕丿賴 卮丿
讴鬲丕亘 丕夭 爻賴 賮氐賱 鬲卮讴蹖賱 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲: 芦賮賱爻賮赖 賯丿蹖賲禄貨 芦賮賱爻賮赖 賯乇賵賳 賵爻胤蹖禄貨 芦賮賱爻賮赖 毓氐乇 噩丿蹖丿禄貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 讴賵卮蹖丿賴 丕爻鬲 鬲丕 丿乇 賴乇 賮氐賱 亘賴 丕賵囟丕毓 賮讴乇蹖 賮賱丕爻賮賴 賵 倬蹖卮乇賮鬲 毓賱賲 賮賱爻賮赖 丿乇 賲蹖丕賳 噩賵丕賲毓 賵 鬲讴丕賲賱 丌賳貙 亘倬乇丿丕夭丿貙 賵 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賮賱爻賮赖 乇丕 亘丕 乇賵卮蹖 賳賯丕丿丕賳賴貙 賲賵乇丿 鬲丨賱蹖賱 賵 賳賯丿 賯乇丕乇 丿賴丿
丿乇 亘禺卮 賳禺爻鬲貙 鬲丕乇蹖禺 倬蹖丿丕蹖卮 賮賱爻賮赖 丕夭 丿賵乇丕賳 倬蹖卮 丕夭 芦爻賯乇丕胤禄 賵 倬蹖卮 丕夭 乇卮丿 賵賴賲賴鈥� 诏蹖乇蹖 賮賱爻賮赖 丿乇 芦蹖賵賳丕賳禄 丌睾丕夭 卮丿賴貙 鬲丕 芦爻賯乇丕胤禄貙 芦丕賮賱丕胤賵賳禄 賵 芦丕乇爻胤賵禄 丕丿丕賲賴 賲蹖鈥屰屫жㄘ� (讴賴 賲賴賲鈥屫臂屬� 亘禺卮 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 賮氐賱 賳禺爻鬲 賳蹖夭 賴賲蹖賳 賲亘丨孬 丕爻鬲) 賵 爻乇丕賳噩丕賲 亘丨孬 亘丕 賮賱丕爻賮賴 倬爻 丕夭 芦丕乇爻胤賵禄 亘賴 倬丕蹖丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫必池�
亘禺卮 丿賵賲貨 亘賴 賮賱爻賮赖 丿乇 丿賵乇丕賳 爻蹖胤乇賴 蹖 讴賱蹖爻丕 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 丕賳丿貙 丿賵乇丕賳 讴賱蹖爻丕 賵 毓氐乇 诏爻鬲乇卮 賲爻蹖丨蹖鬲 丿乇 丕乇賵倬丕貙 賴賲丕賳 丿賵乇丕賳蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賲丕 亘賴 賱丨丕馗 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 亘丕 毓賳賵丕賳 芦賯乇賵賳 賵爻胤蹖 (爻丿賴 賴丕蹖 賲蹖丕賳蹖)禄 賲蹖鈥屫促嗀ж驰屬呚� 丿乇 丌賳 丿賵乇丕賳 亘丕 賵噩賵丿 禺賮賯丕賳 爻蹖丕爻蹖 賵 賲匕賴亘蹖 丿乇 睾乇亘貙 丕賲丕 丕賳诏卮鬲 卮賲丕乇 賮蹖賱爻賵賮丕賳蹖貙 倬丕蹖 亘賴 毓乇氐賴 蹖 賴賲蹖賳 诏蹖鬲蹖 賳賴丕丿賳丿貨 丕賲丕 賳讴鬲賴 噩丕賱亘 鬲賵噩賴 丿乇 亘丕乇賴 蹖 芦爻丿賴 賴丕蹖 賲蹖丕賳蹖禄 丌賳 丕爻鬲貙 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 丿賵乇丕賳貙 賴乇趩賳丿 睾乇亘 丿乇 丕賳丨胤丕胤 賮讴乇蹖 賯乇丕乇 丿丕卮鬲貙 賵賱蹖 卮乇賯 丿乇 丕賵噩 亘賵丿貨 丿丕賳卮賲賳丿丕賳 丕蹖乇丕賳蹖 賵 丕爻賱丕賲蹖貙 賵 賮賱丕爻賮賴 亘夭乇诏 丕蹖乇丕賳蹖貙 賳馗蹖乇 芦爻賴乇賵乇丿蹖禄 賵 芦丕亘賳鈥屫驰屬嗀� 丿乇 丌賳 夭賲丕賳 丿乇 賲卮乇賯鈥� 夭賲蹖賳 丨丕囟乇 亘賵丿賳丿貨 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 丕诏乇 丕蹖乇丕賳鈥� 賵 噩賴丕賳 賲卮乇賯貙 丿乇 丌賳 丿賵乇丕賳 亘賴 倬蹖卮乇賮鬲 丕丿丕賲賴 賳賲蹖鈥屫ж� 賴賲诏蹖 丿爻鬲丕賵乇丿賴丕蹖 毓賱賲蹖 賵 賮賱爻賮蹖 丿賳蹖丕蹖 讴賴賳 丕夭 亘蹖賳 賲蹖鈥屫辟佖� 卮乇賯 丿乇 丕蹖賳 丿賵乇丕賳 倬賱蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丕賳鬲賯丕賱 芦賮賱爻賮赖 蹖賵賳丕賳 亘丕爻鬲丕賳禄 亘賴 丿賳蹖丕蹖 睾乇亘 賯賱賲丿丕丿 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�
亘禺卮 爻賵賲 賵 倬丕蹖丕賳蹖 讴鬲丕亘貙 亘賴 亘乇乇爻蹖 賮蹖賱爻賵賮丕賳 噩丿蹖丿貙 丿乇 丿賵乇丕賳 倬爻 丕夭 乇賳爻丕賳爻 丿乇 睾乇亘貙 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 丕賳丿貨 丿乇 丕蹖賳 亘禺卮貙 賮賱丕爻賮賴 蹖 亘夭乇诏賵丕乇貙 丕夭 芦丕爻倬蹖賳賵夭丕禄 鬲丕 芦丿讴丕乇鬲禄貙 賵 丕夭 芦乇賵爻賵禄 賵 芦賴诏賱禄貙 鬲丕 芦卮賵倬賳賴丕賵乇禄 賵 芦賳蹖趩賴禄貨 賵鈥ω� 賲賵乇丿 賳賯丿 賯乇丕乇 诏乇賮鬲賴貙 賵 賳馗乇 賴賲诏蹖 丌賳 亘夭乇诏賵丕乇丕賳貙 賲賵乇丿 诏夭丕乇卮 丕蹖卮丕賳 賯乇丕乇 賵 丌乇丕賲 诏乇賮鬲賴 賵 丿乇 讴鬲丕亘 丌乇賲蹖丿賴 丕賳丿貨 鬲丕 亘丕夭 賴賲 丕蹖賳 丿蹖丕乇 賳蹖夭 丕夭 禺賵丕亘 禺賵卮 亘蹖丿丕乇 卮賵丿貨 鬲丕 芦爻賴乇賵丿蹖 賵 倬賵乇爻蹖賳丕禄賴丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇蹖 亘丕夭 賴賲 亘乇賵蹖賳丿
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 25/09/1399賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 08/08/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
July 3, 2009
This is a remarkable book. Over the years I have found various reasons to look into it now and again, but have never read the whole thing. Mostly I鈥檝e read the bits about particular philosophers: Heraclitus, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Marx for example. I hadn鈥檛 realised that 鈥榙ipping鈥� in this way was missing much of the point of the book.
This is not just a history of Western Philosophy, but also a bit of a 鈥榟ow do all of the main schools of Western Philosophy fit into their culture and times'. So, much time is spent giving thumb-nail sketches of the history of certain periods in a way that will help the student of philosophy understand where philosophers were coming from when they said such bizarre things as: nothing changes, everything changes, everything is fire, everything is water, matter does not exist, mind does not exist, and so on.
He makes some truly fascinating points in this book 鈥� not least that there is no philosophy that is wholly logically consistent and that sometimes the danger is when a philosopher seeks to remain logically consistent rather than acknowledge the horrendous conclusions that the logical consistency of his ideas forces him toward. I use the male pronoun not simply because Russell also uses it throughout, but because all of the philosophers discussed sport a Y-chromosome.
The book is divided into three parts: Ancient Philosophy, Catholic Philosophy and Modern Philosophy. It was written during the Second World War and I think this shows in part, particularly when Russell is discussing the merits of some philosophers 鈥� not least Nietzsche and Marx. I had thought that I would find the middle section on Catholics the least interesting 鈥� I believe that we 鈥榤oderns鈥� feel we have much more in common with Ancients than we do with the Catholic scholastics of the dark and middle ages 鈥� but Russell is very kind to these philosophers, although in the main I found them to be little more than pedants adding Christian footnotes to Plato and Aristotle. Perhaps, in another life, I will have time to read one or two of them and see if my attitude changes.
This is not a book that requires either an extensive knowledge of philosophy, nor an extensive knowledge of history to be understood. Russell is a remarkably clear writer (something that for a philosopher really is worth commenting on and something that deserves the highest praise). He also is occasionally quite amusing. Now, I know that people who follow either Marx, Kant, Hegel, Dewey, Nietzsche or even Aristotle might find quite a few things to say in disagreement with Mr Russell, but that in no way takes away from the value of this book. I鈥檝e listened to a Teaching Company 鈥楪reat Ideas In Philosophy鈥� course which covered all of the philosophers discussed here, and I think Russell does at least as good a job as was done there. Invaluable is a word that is grossly overused on this site 鈥� particularly by me 鈥� but I do think this book gives an invaluable helicopter view of the history of Western Philosophy that is both accessible and often profound.
I once received my lowest mark in my degree for saying pretty much what Russell says here about his mate Dewey - I am rather proud of the fact that I've only discovered our shared view now - twenty years later. I鈥檝e always found Instrumentalism (otherwise known as Pragmatism) a thoroughly unsatisfactory philosophical standpoint, despite both James and Dewey seeming to be nice enough people in themselves. My main problem with the total rejection of the possibility of any sense that there might be 鈥榯ruth鈥� (which Russell, as might be expected, confines to logical statements) has always had a bit of a smell about it. When I said this in a class paper at Uni I was nearly lynched by both the lecturer (a declared Instrumentalist) and the other students (who knew better than I which side their bread was buttered). I think Russell鈥檚 arguments in this section are similar to the ones I tried to make, but are made in a way that is infinitely clearer than I was capable of at the time - a time when I was keen to seem very 'philosophic' ie, totally unclear. Essentially, I've always thought that to move away from discussing the 鈥榯ruth鈥� of statements and to instead consider their 鈥榚fficacy鈥� is a slippery slope and one that can all too easily bring us to splash down into logical and moral difficulties.
His discussion of Bergson鈥檚 philosophy was enough to ensure I will never read anything by Bergson. I find irrationalism dull and, what is even worse, mind-numbingly 鈥榩oetic鈥� in the very worst sense of that word. Sometimes one needs to be obscure because what you are trying to say does not allow you to be immediately clear. However, as Russell displays so beautifully in this book, that is rarely really necessary and the onus is on the writer to make it clear why being turgid or obscure to the point of impenetrability is in either the interests of the reader or the writer.
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.) Russell's discussion of Socrates and his relationship to Plato is worth reading the book on its own. Plato is a fascinating character, not least because it seems a case can be made that he became increasingly less convinced of his theory of forms as his dialogues went on. Given that this is the core of his system, this would seem somewhat of a problem.
The book ends by saying that a consistent philosophy that takes into consideration Quantum Theory is still to be written - as little as I know of modern philosophy, I would imagine the intervening 60 years have done little to correct this want. Quantum Theory still remains an enigma and all too often leaves the door wide open for all types of very silly ideas.
This is a book that repays the effort of reading it 鈥� it is not a short introduction by any means (being over 800 pages), but it is only a difficult read when he discusses philosophers like Hegel and Bergson who are notoriously difficult anyway. For what this book sets out to do 鈥� pretty much, give the average reader an overview of Western Philosophical thought and its place within Western Culture and History, it does a remarkable job. Although I still think it is very handy as a ready reference on a great many philosophers 鈥� it is much better, as I've found, to have read it all first.
This is not just a history of Western Philosophy, but also a bit of a 鈥榟ow do all of the main schools of Western Philosophy fit into their culture and times'. So, much time is spent giving thumb-nail sketches of the history of certain periods in a way that will help the student of philosophy understand where philosophers were coming from when they said such bizarre things as: nothing changes, everything changes, everything is fire, everything is water, matter does not exist, mind does not exist, and so on.
He makes some truly fascinating points in this book 鈥� not least that there is no philosophy that is wholly logically consistent and that sometimes the danger is when a philosopher seeks to remain logically consistent rather than acknowledge the horrendous conclusions that the logical consistency of his ideas forces him toward. I use the male pronoun not simply because Russell also uses it throughout, but because all of the philosophers discussed sport a Y-chromosome.
The book is divided into three parts: Ancient Philosophy, Catholic Philosophy and Modern Philosophy. It was written during the Second World War and I think this shows in part, particularly when Russell is discussing the merits of some philosophers 鈥� not least Nietzsche and Marx. I had thought that I would find the middle section on Catholics the least interesting 鈥� I believe that we 鈥榤oderns鈥� feel we have much more in common with Ancients than we do with the Catholic scholastics of the dark and middle ages 鈥� but Russell is very kind to these philosophers, although in the main I found them to be little more than pedants adding Christian footnotes to Plato and Aristotle. Perhaps, in another life, I will have time to read one or two of them and see if my attitude changes.
This is not a book that requires either an extensive knowledge of philosophy, nor an extensive knowledge of history to be understood. Russell is a remarkably clear writer (something that for a philosopher really is worth commenting on and something that deserves the highest praise). He also is occasionally quite amusing. Now, I know that people who follow either Marx, Kant, Hegel, Dewey, Nietzsche or even Aristotle might find quite a few things to say in disagreement with Mr Russell, but that in no way takes away from the value of this book. I鈥檝e listened to a Teaching Company 鈥楪reat Ideas In Philosophy鈥� course which covered all of the philosophers discussed here, and I think Russell does at least as good a job as was done there. Invaluable is a word that is grossly overused on this site 鈥� particularly by me 鈥� but I do think this book gives an invaluable helicopter view of the history of Western Philosophy that is both accessible and often profound.
I once received my lowest mark in my degree for saying pretty much what Russell says here about his mate Dewey - I am rather proud of the fact that I've only discovered our shared view now - twenty years later. I鈥檝e always found Instrumentalism (otherwise known as Pragmatism) a thoroughly unsatisfactory philosophical standpoint, despite both James and Dewey seeming to be nice enough people in themselves. My main problem with the total rejection of the possibility of any sense that there might be 鈥榯ruth鈥� (which Russell, as might be expected, confines to logical statements) has always had a bit of a smell about it. When I said this in a class paper at Uni I was nearly lynched by both the lecturer (a declared Instrumentalist) and the other students (who knew better than I which side their bread was buttered). I think Russell鈥檚 arguments in this section are similar to the ones I tried to make, but are made in a way that is infinitely clearer than I was capable of at the time - a time when I was keen to seem very 'philosophic' ie, totally unclear. Essentially, I've always thought that to move away from discussing the 鈥榯ruth鈥� of statements and to instead consider their 鈥榚fficacy鈥� is a slippery slope and one that can all too easily bring us to splash down into logical and moral difficulties.
His discussion of Bergson鈥檚 philosophy was enough to ensure I will never read anything by Bergson. I find irrationalism dull and, what is even worse, mind-numbingly 鈥榩oetic鈥� in the very worst sense of that word. Sometimes one needs to be obscure because what you are trying to say does not allow you to be immediately clear. However, as Russell displays so beautifully in this book, that is rarely really necessary and the onus is on the writer to make it clear why being turgid or obscure to the point of impenetrability is in either the interests of the reader or the writer.
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.) Russell's discussion of Socrates and his relationship to Plato is worth reading the book on its own. Plato is a fascinating character, not least because it seems a case can be made that he became increasingly less convinced of his theory of forms as his dialogues went on. Given that this is the core of his system, this would seem somewhat of a problem.
The book ends by saying that a consistent philosophy that takes into consideration Quantum Theory is still to be written - as little as I know of modern philosophy, I would imagine the intervening 60 years have done little to correct this want. Quantum Theory still remains an enigma and all too often leaves the door wide open for all types of very silly ideas.
This is a book that repays the effort of reading it 鈥� it is not a short introduction by any means (being over 800 pages), but it is only a difficult read when he discusses philosophers like Hegel and Bergson who are notoriously difficult anyway. For what this book sets out to do 鈥� pretty much, give the average reader an overview of Western Philosophical thought and its place within Western Culture and History, it does a remarkable job. Although I still think it is very handy as a ready reference on a great many philosophers 鈥� it is much better, as I've found, to have read it all first.
June 2, 2016
I enjoyed this a bit too much. The History of Western Philosophy is exactly my kind of book, and so this review will be biased.
This, however, illustrates my first point. One鈥檚 opinion of this work will largely depend on one鈥檚 opinion of Russell. This is because he frequently injects his views, ideas, and opinions into the text. I happen to love the guy; I鈥檓 sure reactions will differ.
In this history, Russell does not entirely succeed in his stated goal. What he was trying to do was to firmly situate major thinkers in their historical and cultural context, and then explore the ways that history both shapes and is shaped by these thinkers. This is more successful in the first two thirds, but drops off rather steeply in the section on modern philosophy. Following this plan, the book is divided into chapters on history and chapters on philosophers.
Russell is an excellent writer. Even his fiercest critics grant him this merit. He has a knack for presenting abstract ideas with penetrating clarity. On top of this, he has a delightfully dry sense of humor, which he employs to great effect in breaking up turgid analysis. In general, Russell is at his strongest when presenting the philosophy itself; he is at his weakest when writing history. His ability to generalize is the cause of both qualities.
As I mentioned above, Russell frequently injects his own views into the book. It should be noted, though, that he is crystal-clear when he is doing so. The reader is never confused as to whether it is Russell鈥檚 idea or that of the philosopher under discussion. The bulk of these additions are Russell鈥檚 opinions on philosophical problems and the success of their attempted solutions. Because Russell himself is one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century, these discussions are some of the most fascinating parts of the work. I would go so far to say鈥攁nd I am in no position to say this鈥攖hat no other book can give the student a greater insight into Russell鈥檚 thinking. He takes the opportunity to address nearly every aspect of philosophy: ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, political philosophy, etc.
Russell, like everybody, has biases. He is particularly antagonistic to Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, and Rousseau. Nevertheless, I found his discussions of their ideas to be quite fair. The Nietzsche chapter even ends with a fictional conversation between Nietzsche, Buddha, and God. The only philosopher who I thought was manhandled was Plato, who Russell treats as he would "any contemporary advocate of totalitarianism." He doesn鈥檛 add that Plato almost singlehandedly created political philosophy.
The reader of this book must be conscious of when it was written鈥攁t the height of WWII. Keeping this in mind, many of the motivations for Russell鈥檚 views become much more sensible. In the background of the text, running through every page, is his grappling with the questions: 鈥渨hat is the future for civilization? How did Hitler come to wield so much power?鈥� Russell comes to the conclusion that the Nazis represent the culmination of a strain of anti-intellectualism and romanticism inaugurated by Rousseau and carried forward by Nietzsche, with roots extending all the way back to Plato. I disagree with this analysis. However, in my opinion, when seen in this light, almost all of the flaws in this work vanish. In fact, it would have been despicable to not have been concerned with these issues.
Russell believed that educating the population in science, skepticism, and rational thinking were the keys to preventing further atrocities and making the world a better place. This book, written for a popular audience, is a part of that effort. The world could use more people like Bertrand Russell.
[Note: Something I forgot to mention. This book may not be so great an introduction to philosophy for beginners. Russell is opinionated, so you are likely to get a skewed picture of a philosopher's outlook and relevance if you're first exposed to him through Russell. Additionally, because Russell is an imposing thinker himself, this book is not philosophy-lite. A History of Western Philosophy is far more enjoyable once you have actually read the thinkers yourself. This makes the experience of reading Russell's opinions like having an intelligent conversation with a fellow-reader. Russell is not an expert on many of the subjects he is writing about here, so it is quite legitimate to disagree with him. In fact, that's part of the value of this book.]
This, however, illustrates my first point. One鈥檚 opinion of this work will largely depend on one鈥檚 opinion of Russell. This is because he frequently injects his views, ideas, and opinions into the text. I happen to love the guy; I鈥檓 sure reactions will differ.
In this history, Russell does not entirely succeed in his stated goal. What he was trying to do was to firmly situate major thinkers in their historical and cultural context, and then explore the ways that history both shapes and is shaped by these thinkers. This is more successful in the first two thirds, but drops off rather steeply in the section on modern philosophy. Following this plan, the book is divided into chapters on history and chapters on philosophers.
Russell is an excellent writer. Even his fiercest critics grant him this merit. He has a knack for presenting abstract ideas with penetrating clarity. On top of this, he has a delightfully dry sense of humor, which he employs to great effect in breaking up turgid analysis. In general, Russell is at his strongest when presenting the philosophy itself; he is at his weakest when writing history. His ability to generalize is the cause of both qualities.
As I mentioned above, Russell frequently injects his own views into the book. It should be noted, though, that he is crystal-clear when he is doing so. The reader is never confused as to whether it is Russell鈥檚 idea or that of the philosopher under discussion. The bulk of these additions are Russell鈥檚 opinions on philosophical problems and the success of their attempted solutions. Because Russell himself is one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century, these discussions are some of the most fascinating parts of the work. I would go so far to say鈥攁nd I am in no position to say this鈥攖hat no other book can give the student a greater insight into Russell鈥檚 thinking. He takes the opportunity to address nearly every aspect of philosophy: ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, political philosophy, etc.
Russell, like everybody, has biases. He is particularly antagonistic to Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, and Rousseau. Nevertheless, I found his discussions of their ideas to be quite fair. The Nietzsche chapter even ends with a fictional conversation between Nietzsche, Buddha, and God. The only philosopher who I thought was manhandled was Plato, who Russell treats as he would "any contemporary advocate of totalitarianism." He doesn鈥檛 add that Plato almost singlehandedly created political philosophy.
The reader of this book must be conscious of when it was written鈥攁t the height of WWII. Keeping this in mind, many of the motivations for Russell鈥檚 views become much more sensible. In the background of the text, running through every page, is his grappling with the questions: 鈥渨hat is the future for civilization? How did Hitler come to wield so much power?鈥� Russell comes to the conclusion that the Nazis represent the culmination of a strain of anti-intellectualism and romanticism inaugurated by Rousseau and carried forward by Nietzsche, with roots extending all the way back to Plato. I disagree with this analysis. However, in my opinion, when seen in this light, almost all of the flaws in this work vanish. In fact, it would have been despicable to not have been concerned with these issues.
Russell believed that educating the population in science, skepticism, and rational thinking were the keys to preventing further atrocities and making the world a better place. This book, written for a popular audience, is a part of that effort. The world could use more people like Bertrand Russell.
[Note: Something I forgot to mention. This book may not be so great an introduction to philosophy for beginners. Russell is opinionated, so you are likely to get a skewed picture of a philosopher's outlook and relevance if you're first exposed to him through Russell. Additionally, because Russell is an imposing thinker himself, this book is not philosophy-lite. A History of Western Philosophy is far more enjoyable once you have actually read the thinkers yourself. This makes the experience of reading Russell's opinions like having an intelligent conversation with a fellow-reader. Russell is not an expert on many of the subjects he is writing about here, so it is quite legitimate to disagree with him. In fact, that's part of the value of this book.]
January 29, 2019
鬲乇噩賲賴 禺蹖賱蹖 禺賵亘 亘賵丿貙 賴乇 趩賳丿 诏丕賴蹖 噩賲賱丕鬲 賯丕亘賱 賮賴賲 賳亘賵丿貙 讴賴 賳賲蹖丿賵賳賲 賲卮讴賱 丕夭 賯氐賵乇 賮賴賲 賲賳 亘賵丿 蹖丕 丕夭 鬲乇噩賲賴.
鬲丕乇蹖禺 丕賳鬲賯丕丿蹖 賮賱爻賮赖
丕爻賲 丿乇爻鬲 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 "鬲丕乇蹖禺 丕賳鬲賯丕丿蹖 賮賱爻賮赖" 丕爻鬲貙 賳賴 "鬲丕乇蹖禺 賮賱爻賮赖". 賴乇 賮氐賱 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘貙 鬲賯爻蹖賲 卮丿賴 亘賴 丿賵 賯爻賲鬲: 賯爻賲鬲 讴賵鬲丕賴 (賵 诏丕賴 賳丕乇爻丕蹖) 賳禺爻鬲貙 亘賴 賲毓乇賮蹖 丕噩賲丕賱蹖 亘禺卮蹖 (賵 賳賴 鬲賲丕賲) 丕夭 賮賱爻賮赖 蹖 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 禺丕氐 賲蹖倬乇丿丕夭賴. 賯爻賲鬲 亘賱賳丿 賵 賲賮氐賱 丿賵賲貙 亘賴 丕賳鬲賯丕丿 丕夭 賮賱爻賮赖 卮. 賴乇 趩賳丿 禺蹖賱蹖 丕蹖賳 丕賳鬲賯丕丿賴丕 丿賯蹖賯 賵 賱匕鬲 亘禺卮 亘賵丿賳貙 (賲禺氐賵氐丕賸 亘丕 賳孬乇賽 诏丕賴 胤賳夭 丌賲蹖夭 讴鬲丕亘 讴賴 賳賲蹖 丿賵賳賲 讴丕乇 乇丕爻賱 亘賵丿賴貙 蹖丕 賳噩賮 丿乇蹖丕亘賳丿乇蹖) 丕賲丕 賳讴鬲賴 蹖 賲賴賲貙 丕蹖賳賴 讴賴 讴爻蹖 讴賴 鬲丕夭賴 賲蹖禺賵丕丿 亘丕 賳馗乇蹖丕鬲 蹖賴 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 丌卮賳丕 亘卮賴貙 賲蹖禺賵丕丿 亘蹖卮鬲乇 丨乇賮 賴丕蹖 丕賵賳 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 乇賵 賴囟賲 讴賳賴 賵 亘賮賴賲賴 賵 丨丕賱丕 賮毓賱丕賸 丿賳亘丕賱 氐丨蹖丨 賵 爻賯蹖賲 亘賵丿賳卮 賳蹖爻鬲. 讴鬲丕亘 丕夭 丕蹖賳 噩賴鬲 囟毓蹖賮 讴丕乇 讴乇丿賴. 丿乇 賳鬲蹖噩賴 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 丕賵賱蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賮賱爻賮赖貙 倬蹖卮賳賴丕丿 賳賲蹖卮賴. 賲賳 賳氐賮 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 丕賵賱 禺賵賳丿賲貙 亘毓丿 乇賮鬲賲 丿賵 讴鬲丕亘 丿蹖诏賴 丿乇 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賮賱爻賮赖 睾乇亘 禺賵賳丿賲 讴賴 丌卮賳丕 亘卮賲貙 賵 丿賵亘丕乇賴 亘乇诏卮鬲賲 爻乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘.
賳讴丕鬲 倬乇丕讴賳丿賴
乇丕爻賱 讴丕乇 噩丕賱亘蹖 賲蹖讴賳賴 賵 丿乇 賴賲賴 蹖 賳馗乇蹖丕鬲貙 爻毓蹖 賲蹖讴賳賴 倬爻夭賲蹖賳賴 蹖 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 丕賵賳 賳馗乇蹖賴 乇賵 賴賲 賲丿 賳馗乇 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮賴. 禺蹖賱蹖 噩丕賴丕 賳卮賵賳 賲蹖丿賴 讴賴 丕蹖賳 賳馗乇蹖賴貙 賲賵賱賵丿 賮賱丕賳 卮乇丕蹖胤 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 亘賵丿賴. 丕蹖賳 讴丕乇 鬲胤亘蹖賯蹖 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賮賱爻賮赖 賵 鬲丕乇蹖禺 爻蹖丕爻蹖-丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖貙 禺蹖賱蹖 噩丕賱亘 亘賵丿.
诏丕賴蹖 賴賲 蹖賴 賳讴丕鬲蹖 丕夭 賳馗乇蹖丕鬲 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 賲蹖诏賴貙 讴賴 賴蹖趩 噩丕蹖 丿蹖诏賴 倬蹖丿丕卮 賳禺賵丕賴蹖丿 讴乇丿貙 趩賵賳 丕氐賱丕賸 丿乇 賳馗乇蹖丕鬲 丕賵賳 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 賳蹖爻鬲. 亘賱讴賴 丕爻鬲賳亘丕胤 乇丕爻賱 丕夭 賳馗乇蹖丕鬲 丕賵賳 賮乇丿賴 賵 賲蹖诏賴: 丕诏賴 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 丕賱賮 乇賵 賯亘賵賱 丿丕卮鬲賴貙 倬爻 亘 乇賵 賴賲 賯亘賵賱 丿丕卮鬲賴.
丕蹖賳 賳讴丕鬲 賴賲 禺蹖賱蹖 禺蹖賱蹖 噩丕賱亘賳.
鬲丕乇蹖禺 丕賳鬲賯丕丿蹖 賮賱爻賮赖
丕爻賲 丿乇爻鬲 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 "鬲丕乇蹖禺 丕賳鬲賯丕丿蹖 賮賱爻賮赖" 丕爻鬲貙 賳賴 "鬲丕乇蹖禺 賮賱爻賮赖". 賴乇 賮氐賱 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘貙 鬲賯爻蹖賲 卮丿賴 亘賴 丿賵 賯爻賲鬲: 賯爻賲鬲 讴賵鬲丕賴 (賵 诏丕賴 賳丕乇爻丕蹖) 賳禺爻鬲貙 亘賴 賲毓乇賮蹖 丕噩賲丕賱蹖 亘禺卮蹖 (賵 賳賴 鬲賲丕賲) 丕夭 賮賱爻賮赖 蹖 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 禺丕氐 賲蹖倬乇丿丕夭賴. 賯爻賲鬲 亘賱賳丿 賵 賲賮氐賱 丿賵賲貙 亘賴 丕賳鬲賯丕丿 丕夭 賮賱爻賮赖 卮. 賴乇 趩賳丿 禺蹖賱蹖 丕蹖賳 丕賳鬲賯丕丿賴丕 丿賯蹖賯 賵 賱匕鬲 亘禺卮 亘賵丿賳貙 (賲禺氐賵氐丕賸 亘丕 賳孬乇賽 诏丕賴 胤賳夭 丌賲蹖夭 讴鬲丕亘 讴賴 賳賲蹖 丿賵賳賲 讴丕乇 乇丕爻賱 亘賵丿賴貙 蹖丕 賳噩賮 丿乇蹖丕亘賳丿乇蹖) 丕賲丕 賳讴鬲賴 蹖 賲賴賲貙 丕蹖賳賴 讴賴 讴爻蹖 讴賴 鬲丕夭賴 賲蹖禺賵丕丿 亘丕 賳馗乇蹖丕鬲 蹖賴 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 丌卮賳丕 亘卮賴貙 賲蹖禺賵丕丿 亘蹖卮鬲乇 丨乇賮 賴丕蹖 丕賵賳 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 乇賵 賴囟賲 讴賳賴 賵 亘賮賴賲賴 賵 丨丕賱丕 賮毓賱丕賸 丿賳亘丕賱 氐丨蹖丨 賵 爻賯蹖賲 亘賵丿賳卮 賳蹖爻鬲. 讴鬲丕亘 丕夭 丕蹖賳 噩賴鬲 囟毓蹖賮 讴丕乇 讴乇丿賴. 丿乇 賳鬲蹖噩賴 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 丕賵賱蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賮賱爻賮赖貙 倬蹖卮賳賴丕丿 賳賲蹖卮賴. 賲賳 賳氐賮 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 丕賵賱 禺賵賳丿賲貙 亘毓丿 乇賮鬲賲 丿賵 讴鬲丕亘 丿蹖诏賴 丿乇 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賮賱爻賮赖 睾乇亘 禺賵賳丿賲 讴賴 丌卮賳丕 亘卮賲貙 賵 丿賵亘丕乇賴 亘乇诏卮鬲賲 爻乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘.
賳讴丕鬲 倬乇丕讴賳丿賴
乇丕爻賱 讴丕乇 噩丕賱亘蹖 賲蹖讴賳賴 賵 丿乇 賴賲賴 蹖 賳馗乇蹖丕鬲貙 爻毓蹖 賲蹖讴賳賴 倬爻夭賲蹖賳賴 蹖 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 丕賵賳 賳馗乇蹖賴 乇賵 賴賲 賲丿 賳馗乇 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮賴. 禺蹖賱蹖 噩丕賴丕 賳卮賵賳 賲蹖丿賴 讴賴 丕蹖賳 賳馗乇蹖賴貙 賲賵賱賵丿 賮賱丕賳 卮乇丕蹖胤 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 亘賵丿賴. 丕蹖賳 讴丕乇 鬲胤亘蹖賯蹖 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賮賱爻賮赖 賵 鬲丕乇蹖禺 爻蹖丕爻蹖-丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖貙 禺蹖賱蹖 噩丕賱亘 亘賵丿.
诏丕賴蹖 賴賲 蹖賴 賳讴丕鬲蹖 丕夭 賳馗乇蹖丕鬲 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 賲蹖诏賴貙 讴賴 賴蹖趩 噩丕蹖 丿蹖诏賴 倬蹖丿丕卮 賳禺賵丕賴蹖丿 讴乇丿貙 趩賵賳 丕氐賱丕賸 丿乇 賳馗乇蹖丕鬲 丕賵賳 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 賳蹖爻鬲. 亘賱讴賴 丕爻鬲賳亘丕胤 乇丕爻賱 丕夭 賳馗乇蹖丕鬲 丕賵賳 賮乇丿賴 賵 賲蹖诏賴: 丕诏賴 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 丕賱賮 乇賵 賯亘賵賱 丿丕卮鬲賴貙 倬爻 亘 乇賵 賴賲 賯亘賵賱 丿丕卮鬲賴.
丕蹖賳 賳讴丕鬲 賴賲 禺蹖賱蹖 禺蹖賱蹖 噩丕賱亘賳.
November 7, 2019
Bertrand Russel rocks the entire history of Western Philosophy like a boss! Long but, oh so worth it!
October 16, 2019
Such an interesting and comprehensive guide to the best thinkers in Western Philosophy. I particularly enjoyed the conclusion where Russell articulates his perspective on the purpose of philosophy as a discipline.
January 11, 2020
亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 丕賵賱蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘乇丕蹖 賮賱爻賮赖 丿丕賳爻鬲賳貙 賲賳丕爻亘 賳蹖爻鬲. 趩賵賳 賲蹖夭丕賳 賲胤丕賱亘 亘爻蹖丕乇 賮乇丕賵丕賳 丕爻鬲 賵 賲胤丕賱亘 賮卮乇丿賴 鬲賵囟蹖丨 丿丕丿賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀�. 丿乇 賳鬲蹖噩賴 丿爻鬲 诏乇賮鬲賳 讴鬲丕亘 賵 丕夭 丕賵賱 鬲丕 丌禺乇 禺賵丕賳丿賳 亘乇丕蹖 丌卮賳丕蹖蹖 亘丕 賮賱爻賮赖貙 趩賳丿丕賳 乇丕賴诏卮丕 賳蹖爻鬲. 亘丕 丕蹖賳 丨噩賲 亘丕賱丕蹖 賲胤丕賱亘貙 賮乇丕賲賵卮蹖 亘禺卮 夭蹖丕丿蹖 丕夭 賲胤丕賱亘 賳丕诏乇蹖夭 賵 賮賴賲 讴丕賲賱 賲胤丕賱亘 亘爻蹖丕乇 亘毓蹖丿 丕爻鬲.
亘賴 賳馗乇賲 亘賴鬲乇賳 丨丕賱鬲 禺賵丕賳丿賳 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賴乇 賵賯鬲 噩丕蹖蹖 丕夭 蹖讴 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 禺賵丕賳丿蹖丿貙 亘賴 亘禺卮 賲乇亘賵胤 亘賴 丕賵 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲乇丕噩毓賴 讴賳蹖丿. 亘丕 丕蹖賳 乇賵蹖讴乇丿 賵 亘丕 鬲賵噩賴 亘賴 丕蹖賳讴賴 乇丕爻賱 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 賴乇 賮蹖賱爻賵賮蹖 賳賯丿賴丕蹖蹖 賴賲 賲蹖鈥屫①堌必� 讴鬲丕亘 亘乇丕蹖 賲乇丕噩毓賴鈥屰� 賲賵乇丿蹖 鬲亘丿蹖賱 亘賴 賲賳亘毓 亘丕丕乇夭卮鈥屫臂� 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�.
賵乇賵丿 噩丿蹖 賲賳 亘賴 賮賱爻賮赖 亘丕 賴賲蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘賵丿. 丿乇 賳鬲蹖噩賴 丿趩丕乇 賲卮讴賱丕鬲蹖 卮丿賲 讴賴 丿乇 亘賳丿 丕賵賱 丌賵乇丿賲. 卮丕蹖丿 亘賴鬲乇蹖賳 乇丕賴 賵乇賵丿 亘賴 賮賱爻賮赖貙 卮乇賵毓 亘丕 讴鬲丕亘鈥屬囏й� 睾蹖乇 噩丿蹖鈥屫臂� 賲孬賱 芦丿賳蹖丕蹖 爻賵賮蹖禄貙 爻倬爻 禺賵丕賳丿賳 蹖讴 蹖丕 趩賳丿 讴鬲丕亘 賲賵囟賵毓蹖 賵 噩丕賲毓 賵 亘毓丿 禺賵丕賳丿賳 亘丕 爻蹖乇 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 亘丕卮丿.
亘乇丕蹖 禺賵丕賳丿賳 亘乇丕爻丕爻 爻蹖乇 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖貙 賱夭賵賲丕賸 賳蹖丕夭蹖 亘賴 禺賵丕賳丿賳 禺賵丿 讴鬲丕亘鈥屬囏й� 賮蹖賱爻賵賮丕賳 賳蹖爻鬲. 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 丕亘鬲丿丕 蹖丕 鬲賳賴丕 讴鬲亘 乇丕賴賳賲丕 賵 卮乇丨鈥屬囏� 乇丕 禺賵丕賳丿. 丕賱亘鬲賴 讴賴 賳诏丕乇卮 賵 賲丨鬲賵丕蹖 亘乇禺蹖 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘鈥屬囏й� 丕氐賱蹖 丌爻丕賳 丕爻鬲 賵 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 賴賲丕賳鈥屬囏� 乇丕 禺賵丕賳丿. 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 亘蹖賳 讴鬲亘 乇丕賴賳賲丕 蹖丕 丕氐賱 讴鬲亘 亘丕蹖丿 賲賵乇丿蹖 丕賳噩丕賲 卮賵丿.
丕夭 讴鬲丕亘
賮賱爻賮赖貙 趩賳丕賳 賰賴 賲賳 丕夭 丕蹖賳 讴賱賲賴 丿乇 賲蹖鈥屰屫жㄙ呚� 丨丿 賵爻胤 丕賱賴蹖丕鬲 賵 毓賱賲 丕爻鬲. 賲丕賳賳丿 丕賱賴蹖丕鬲貙 毓亘丕乇鬲 丕爻鬲 丕夭 鬲賮賰乇 丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥屰� 賲賵囟賵毓丕鬲蹖 賰賴 鬲丕賰賳賵賳 亘賴 丿爻鬲 丌賵乇丿賳 丿丕賳卮 賯胤毓蹖 丿乇亘丕乇賴 卮丕賳 賲蹖爻乇 賳卮丿賴 丕爻鬲貨 賵 賲丕賳賳丿 毓賱賲貙 亘賴 毓賯賱 亘卮乇 鬲賰蹖賴 丿丕乇丿貙 賳賴 亘賴 丿賱丕蹖賱 賳賯賱蹖 - 禺賵丕賴 賲乇丕丿 丕夭 丿賱丕蹖賱 賳賯賱蹖 爻賳鬲 亘丕卮丿貙 禺賵丕賴 賵丨蹖 賵 賲賰丕卮賮賴. 賲賳 賲蹖诏賵蹖賲 賴乇诏賵賳賴 丿丕賳卮 芦賯胤毓蹖禄 毓賱賲 丕爻鬲貙 賵 賴乇 诏賵賳賴 芦毓賯蹖丿賴鈥屰� 噩夭賲蹖禄 賰賴 丕夭 丨丿賵丿 丿丕賳卮 賯胤毓蹖 賯丿賲 賮乇丕鬲乇 亘诏匕丕乇丿 亘賴 丕賱賴蹖丕鬲 鬲毓賱賯 丿丕乇丿. 丕賲丕 賲蹖丕賳 丕賱賴蹖丕鬲 賵 毓賱賲 亘乇夭禺蹖 賳蹖夭 賴爻鬲 賳丕賲賰卮賵賮 亘乇丕蹖 賴乇丿賵貙 賵 丿乇 賲毓乇囟 丨賲賱賴鈥屰� 賴乇 丿賵 噩丕賳亘貨 丕蹖賳 亘乇夭禺 賴賲丕賳 賮賱爻賮赖 丕爻鬲.
*
賳賴囟鬲 乇賲丕賳鬲蹖讴 丿乇 賴賳乇 賵 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲 賵 爻蹖丕爻鬲 亘爻鬲诏蹖 丿丕乇丿 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賲爻賱讴 匕賴賳蹖 丿乇 賯囟丕賵鬲 乇丕噩毓 亘賴 丕賮賭乇丕丿 亘卮賭乇 賳賭賴 趩賵賳 丕毓囟丕蹖 丕噩鬲賲丕毓貙 亘賱讴賴 亘賴 賲孬丕亘賴鈥屰� 賲賵囟賵毓丕鬲 鬲賮讴乇 讴賴 丕夭 賱丨丕馗 毓賱賲 丕賱噩賲丕賱 賱匕鬲 亘禺卮賳丿. 亘亘乇 丕夭 诏賵爻賮賳丿 夭蹖亘丕鬲乇 丕爻鬲貙 賵賱蹖 賲丕 鬲乇噩蹖丨 賲蹖鈥屫囒屬� 讴賴 亘亘乇 丿乇 賯賮爻 賲丨亘賵爻 亘丕卮丿. 蹖讴 賳賮乇 乇賵賲丕賳鬲蹖讴賽 賳賲賵賳賴貙 丿乇 賯賮爻 乇丕 亘丕夭 賲蹖讴賳丿 賵 丕夭 噩爻鬲 賵 禺蹖夭 亘爻蹖丕乇 夭蹖亘丕蹖 亘亘乇貙 讴賴 賲賳噩乇 亘賴 賴賱丕讴 诏賵爻賮賳丿 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賱匕鬲 賲蹖鈥屫ㄘ必�. 賵蹖 丕賳爻丕賳 乇丕 鬲卮賵蹖賯 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁€丿 讴賭賴 亘亘賭乇 亘丕卮賭丿貙 賵賱蹖 趩賵賳 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴丕乇 鬲賵賮蹖賯 蹖丕亘丿 賳鬲丕蹖噩 丌賳 趩賳丿丕賳 賲胤亘賵毓 賵 賲胤賱賵亘 賳蹖爻鬲.
亘賴 賳馗乇賲 亘賴鬲乇賳 丨丕賱鬲 禺賵丕賳丿賳 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賴乇 賵賯鬲 噩丕蹖蹖 丕夭 蹖讴 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 禺賵丕賳丿蹖丿貙 亘賴 亘禺卮 賲乇亘賵胤 亘賴 丕賵 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲乇丕噩毓賴 讴賳蹖丿. 亘丕 丕蹖賳 乇賵蹖讴乇丿 賵 亘丕 鬲賵噩賴 亘賴 丕蹖賳讴賴 乇丕爻賱 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 賴乇 賮蹖賱爻賵賮蹖 賳賯丿賴丕蹖蹖 賴賲 賲蹖鈥屫①堌必� 讴鬲丕亘 亘乇丕蹖 賲乇丕噩毓賴鈥屰� 賲賵乇丿蹖 鬲亘丿蹖賱 亘賴 賲賳亘毓 亘丕丕乇夭卮鈥屫臂� 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�.
賵乇賵丿 噩丿蹖 賲賳 亘賴 賮賱爻賮赖 亘丕 賴賲蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘賵丿. 丿乇 賳鬲蹖噩賴 丿趩丕乇 賲卮讴賱丕鬲蹖 卮丿賲 讴賴 丿乇 亘賳丿 丕賵賱 丌賵乇丿賲. 卮丕蹖丿 亘賴鬲乇蹖賳 乇丕賴 賵乇賵丿 亘賴 賮賱爻賮赖貙 卮乇賵毓 亘丕 讴鬲丕亘鈥屬囏й� 睾蹖乇 噩丿蹖鈥屫臂� 賲孬賱 芦丿賳蹖丕蹖 爻賵賮蹖禄貙 爻倬爻 禺賵丕賳丿賳 蹖讴 蹖丕 趩賳丿 讴鬲丕亘 賲賵囟賵毓蹖 賵 噩丕賲毓 賵 亘毓丿 禺賵丕賳丿賳 亘丕 爻蹖乇 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 亘丕卮丿.
亘乇丕蹖 禺賵丕賳丿賳 亘乇丕爻丕爻 爻蹖乇 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖貙 賱夭賵賲丕賸 賳蹖丕夭蹖 亘賴 禺賵丕賳丿賳 禺賵丿 讴鬲丕亘鈥屬囏й� 賮蹖賱爻賵賮丕賳 賳蹖爻鬲. 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 丕亘鬲丿丕 蹖丕 鬲賳賴丕 讴鬲亘 乇丕賴賳賲丕 賵 卮乇丨鈥屬囏� 乇丕 禺賵丕賳丿. 丕賱亘鬲賴 讴賴 賳诏丕乇卮 賵 賲丨鬲賵丕蹖 亘乇禺蹖 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘鈥屬囏й� 丕氐賱蹖 丌爻丕賳 丕爻鬲 賵 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 賴賲丕賳鈥屬囏� 乇丕 禺賵丕賳丿. 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 亘蹖賳 讴鬲亘 乇丕賴賳賲丕 蹖丕 丕氐賱 讴鬲亘 亘丕蹖丿 賲賵乇丿蹖 丕賳噩丕賲 卮賵丿.
丕夭 讴鬲丕亘
賮賱爻賮赖貙 趩賳丕賳 賰賴 賲賳 丕夭 丕蹖賳 讴賱賲賴 丿乇 賲蹖鈥屰屫жㄙ呚� 丨丿 賵爻胤 丕賱賴蹖丕鬲 賵 毓賱賲 丕爻鬲. 賲丕賳賳丿 丕賱賴蹖丕鬲貙 毓亘丕乇鬲 丕爻鬲 丕夭 鬲賮賰乇 丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥屰� 賲賵囟賵毓丕鬲蹖 賰賴 鬲丕賰賳賵賳 亘賴 丿爻鬲 丌賵乇丿賳 丿丕賳卮 賯胤毓蹖 丿乇亘丕乇賴 卮丕賳 賲蹖爻乇 賳卮丿賴 丕爻鬲貨 賵 賲丕賳賳丿 毓賱賲貙 亘賴 毓賯賱 亘卮乇 鬲賰蹖賴 丿丕乇丿貙 賳賴 亘賴 丿賱丕蹖賱 賳賯賱蹖 - 禺賵丕賴 賲乇丕丿 丕夭 丿賱丕蹖賱 賳賯賱蹖 爻賳鬲 亘丕卮丿貙 禺賵丕賴 賵丨蹖 賵 賲賰丕卮賮賴. 賲賳 賲蹖诏賵蹖賲 賴乇诏賵賳賴 丿丕賳卮 芦賯胤毓蹖禄 毓賱賲 丕爻鬲貙 賵 賴乇 诏賵賳賴 芦毓賯蹖丿賴鈥屰� 噩夭賲蹖禄 賰賴 丕夭 丨丿賵丿 丿丕賳卮 賯胤毓蹖 賯丿賲 賮乇丕鬲乇 亘诏匕丕乇丿 亘賴 丕賱賴蹖丕鬲 鬲毓賱賯 丿丕乇丿. 丕賲丕 賲蹖丕賳 丕賱賴蹖丕鬲 賵 毓賱賲 亘乇夭禺蹖 賳蹖夭 賴爻鬲 賳丕賲賰卮賵賮 亘乇丕蹖 賴乇丿賵貙 賵 丿乇 賲毓乇囟 丨賲賱賴鈥屰� 賴乇 丿賵 噩丕賳亘貨 丕蹖賳 亘乇夭禺 賴賲丕賳 賮賱爻賮赖 丕爻鬲.
*
賳賴囟鬲 乇賲丕賳鬲蹖讴 丿乇 賴賳乇 賵 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲 賵 爻蹖丕爻鬲 亘爻鬲诏蹖 丿丕乇丿 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賲爻賱讴 匕賴賳蹖 丿乇 賯囟丕賵鬲 乇丕噩毓 亘賴 丕賮賭乇丕丿 亘卮賭乇 賳賭賴 趩賵賳 丕毓囟丕蹖 丕噩鬲賲丕毓貙 亘賱讴賴 亘賴 賲孬丕亘賴鈥屰� 賲賵囟賵毓丕鬲 鬲賮讴乇 讴賴 丕夭 賱丨丕馗 毓賱賲 丕賱噩賲丕賱 賱匕鬲 亘禺卮賳丿. 亘亘乇 丕夭 诏賵爻賮賳丿 夭蹖亘丕鬲乇 丕爻鬲貙 賵賱蹖 賲丕 鬲乇噩蹖丨 賲蹖鈥屫囒屬� 讴賴 亘亘乇 丿乇 賯賮爻 賲丨亘賵爻 亘丕卮丿. 蹖讴 賳賮乇 乇賵賲丕賳鬲蹖讴賽 賳賲賵賳賴貙 丿乇 賯賮爻 乇丕 亘丕夭 賲蹖讴賳丿 賵 丕夭 噩爻鬲 賵 禺蹖夭 亘爻蹖丕乇 夭蹖亘丕蹖 亘亘乇貙 讴賴 賲賳噩乇 亘賴 賴賱丕讴 诏賵爻賮賳丿 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賱匕鬲 賲蹖鈥屫ㄘ必�. 賵蹖 丕賳爻丕賳 乇丕 鬲卮賵蹖賯 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁€丿 讴賭賴 亘亘賭乇 亘丕卮賭丿貙 賵賱蹖 趩賵賳 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴丕乇 鬲賵賮蹖賯 蹖丕亘丿 賳鬲丕蹖噩 丌賳 趩賳丿丕賳 賲胤亘賵毓 賵 賲胤賱賵亘 賳蹖爻鬲.
August 6, 2011
At first it seems impressive that a single individual could accumulate such a vast understanding of Werstern Philosophy from Thales to Dewey. At first it seems that the work is well researched, objective, and only humorously judgemental at times. . . And for the first five-hundred pages these feelings seem to preside. Yet, when Russell reaches what, to me, is the important period of Philosophy, namely the modern period from the Rennaisance till the present, I find that Russell's analysis of each philosopher begins to grow shallower, leading not to a decent caricature or snapshot of the work in question, but more to a wholly unfair criticism of all those Russell finds himself at odds with.
Strangely enough, with the men of history that he finds himself in agreement with, he expresses a humility in regards to their work, clearly laying out his interpretation even though he dares not say that he truly understands m as fully as intended . . . this same humitlty, when faced with Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Kant, Hegel etc. is turned into a ridiculous (and hypocritical) demolition of their works on a shallow basis. It remains unclear whether Russell in-fact understands the depths of his opponent's work, although it doesn't matter to him.
Sadly, even to an amateur as myself, his criticisms seem to miss the point entirely. In what I assume to be an attempt at avoiding obscurantism and reaching a simplicity for the layman, it seems that he has relegated subtlety for the blockish ideas of solid forms. No philosophy stands fairly against such disregard for language, intepretation etc.
Overall the work may act as a decent introduction to philosophy as a whole, but I personally feel you would be better off delving into the faster read and likely more honest books out there . . . Philosophy for Dummies, Introducing Philosophy etc. I'm sure this book would be much to the liking of anyone with the same mindset as Russel himself, but have to say that objectivity is here greatly tarnished by shallow thought, misunderstanding, stupidity (yes), and an obsession with modern-day values and prejuidices with no apparent explanation for his own ethical standpoint.
Strangely enough, with the men of history that he finds himself in agreement with, he expresses a humility in regards to their work, clearly laying out his interpretation even though he dares not say that he truly understands m as fully as intended . . . this same humitlty, when faced with Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Kant, Hegel etc. is turned into a ridiculous (and hypocritical) demolition of their works on a shallow basis. It remains unclear whether Russell in-fact understands the depths of his opponent's work, although it doesn't matter to him.
Sadly, even to an amateur as myself, his criticisms seem to miss the point entirely. In what I assume to be an attempt at avoiding obscurantism and reaching a simplicity for the layman, it seems that he has relegated subtlety for the blockish ideas of solid forms. No philosophy stands fairly against such disregard for language, intepretation etc.
Overall the work may act as a decent introduction to philosophy as a whole, but I personally feel you would be better off delving into the faster read and likely more honest books out there . . . Philosophy for Dummies, Introducing Philosophy etc. I'm sure this book would be much to the liking of anyone with the same mindset as Russel himself, but have to say that objectivity is here greatly tarnished by shallow thought, misunderstanding, stupidity (yes), and an obsession with modern-day values and prejuidices with no apparent explanation for his own ethical standpoint.
May 4, 2018
Enjoyed the comprehensive eye-opening knowledge. Highly recommended.
Want to read
September 29, 2015Overview
Bertrand Russell's History consists of 76 Chapters, almost all under 20 pages.
Each Chapter contains a summary of one major philosopher's key arguments interlaced with criticism that reflects Russell's own priorities and perspectives.
In a sense, it is one philosopher judging the work of another.
We therefore need to exercise caution in relying on Russell's methodology, perspectives and conclusions.
Apart from this reservation, I actually really enjoy his style. He is very clear and seems to be quite worldly and amusing. I get the impression I might have enjoyed sitting next to him at a dinner party.
My Reading Project
As part of a broader reading project, I will read and review some individual Chapters in My Writings.
I will post links to My Writings below.
Immanuel Kant
It's worth noting that he gives Kant more space than Hegel and almost twice as much space as Marx.
Bertrand Russell's History consists of 76 Chapters, almost all under 20 pages.
Each Chapter contains a summary of one major philosopher's key arguments interlaced with criticism that reflects Russell's own priorities and perspectives.
In a sense, it is one philosopher judging the work of another.
We therefore need to exercise caution in relying on Russell's methodology, perspectives and conclusions.
Apart from this reservation, I actually really enjoy his style. He is very clear and seems to be quite worldly and amusing. I get the impression I might have enjoyed sitting next to him at a dinner party.
My Reading Project
As part of a broader reading project, I will read and review some individual Chapters in My Writings.
I will post links to My Writings below.
Immanuel Kant
It's worth noting that he gives Kant more space than Hegel and almost twice as much space as Marx.
May 5, 2022
Cogito, ergo sum; God is dead.... Too often the ideas of past philosophers are eclipsed by glib taglines. Russell invites us to go deeper: what motivated these philosophers? How have their ideas evolved? Russell creates a historical context that clarifies their concerns. This book is as much about history as it is about philosophy. 鈥淭o understand an age or a nation, we must understand its philosophy, and to understand its philosophy we must ourselves be in some degree philosophers. There is a reciprocal causation: the circumstances of men's lives do much to determine their philosophy, but, conversely, their philsophy does much to determine their circumstances.鈥� (p.11)
Russell also delineates some broader themes. Mystical elements, what he calls 鈥淥rphic,鈥� intertwined with logic in Greek philosophy. Clergy and secular authorities engaged in a struggle throughout the middle ages for ascendancy, shaping the arguments of the Scholastics. The ongoing conflict between individual freedom and orderly governance was intensified by the romantic era. The latter is of particular concern to Russell who wrote this book in the aftermath of World War II. 鈥淚f we could all live solitary and without labour, we could all enjoy this ecstasy of independence; since we cannot, its delights are only available to madmen and dictators. Revolt of solitary instincts against social bonds is the key to the philosophy, the politics, and the sentiments, not only of what is commonly called the romantic movement, but of its progeny down to the present day.鈥� (p.863) At the same time, Russell is wary of an arid rationalism. 鈥淧rudence versus passion is a conflict that runs through history. It is not a conflict in which we ought to side wholly with either party.鈥� (p.41)
Russell's style is entertaining and irreverent. He skewers Nietsche with his psychological analysis. He chides both Socrates and St. Thomas Aquinas for intellectual dishonesty, finding arguments for positions they have decided in advance rather than engaging in pure inquiry.
He creates indelible portraits of these men. Schopenhauer's semi-mystical pronouncements on 鈥淭he Will鈥� is paired with his self-indulgent lifestyle and celebratory exclamation, 'Obit anus, abit onus' (the old woman dies, the burden departs) on the death of his landlady whom he owed annual compensation for shoving her down a flight of stairs.
Russell shows how philosophy has evolved from a focus on things to a focus on process, bringing it in alignment with quantum physics. Space-time, he maintains, is now space and time and the idea of a continuum is challenged with the idea of intervals. 鈥淓instein substituted events for particles; each event had to each other a relation called 'interval,' which would be analysed in various ways into a time-element and a space-element.鈥� (p.1059)
This is a thousand plus page book. My understanding of philosophy remains imperfect. My takeaway? Ideas have intellectual pedigrees. That history helps to explain what an ever-changing language has obscured and reveals criticisms that remain to be addressed.
Three of us formed a splinter book club to read this book. We could not have made it to the finish without our weekly discussions. Despite its length and heavy focus on metaphysics, this was definitely a worthwhile read.
Russell also delineates some broader themes. Mystical elements, what he calls 鈥淥rphic,鈥� intertwined with logic in Greek philosophy. Clergy and secular authorities engaged in a struggle throughout the middle ages for ascendancy, shaping the arguments of the Scholastics. The ongoing conflict between individual freedom and orderly governance was intensified by the romantic era. The latter is of particular concern to Russell who wrote this book in the aftermath of World War II. 鈥淚f we could all live solitary and without labour, we could all enjoy this ecstasy of independence; since we cannot, its delights are only available to madmen and dictators. Revolt of solitary instincts against social bonds is the key to the philosophy, the politics, and the sentiments, not only of what is commonly called the romantic movement, but of its progeny down to the present day.鈥� (p.863) At the same time, Russell is wary of an arid rationalism. 鈥淧rudence versus passion is a conflict that runs through history. It is not a conflict in which we ought to side wholly with either party.鈥� (p.41)
Russell's style is entertaining and irreverent. He skewers Nietsche with his psychological analysis. He chides both Socrates and St. Thomas Aquinas for intellectual dishonesty, finding arguments for positions they have decided in advance rather than engaging in pure inquiry.
He creates indelible portraits of these men. Schopenhauer's semi-mystical pronouncements on 鈥淭he Will鈥� is paired with his self-indulgent lifestyle and celebratory exclamation, 'Obit anus, abit onus' (the old woman dies, the burden departs) on the death of his landlady whom he owed annual compensation for shoving her down a flight of stairs.
Russell shows how philosophy has evolved from a focus on things to a focus on process, bringing it in alignment with quantum physics. Space-time, he maintains, is now space and time and the idea of a continuum is challenged with the idea of intervals. 鈥淓instein substituted events for particles; each event had to each other a relation called 'interval,' which would be analysed in various ways into a time-element and a space-element.鈥� (p.1059)
This is a thousand plus page book. My understanding of philosophy remains imperfect. My takeaway? Ideas have intellectual pedigrees. That history helps to explain what an ever-changing language has obscured and reveals criticisms that remain to be addressed.
Three of us formed a splinter book club to read this book. We could not have made it to the finish without our weekly discussions. Despite its length and heavy focus on metaphysics, this was definitely a worthwhile read.
July 15, 2011
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. I'd be quite interested to hear Bertrand Russell's thoughts on the past 65 years; I did stumble upon his remarkable final statement, written two days before his death at age 97, which shows him putting his formidable powers of rationality to work in succinctly and accurately assessing the nature of the Middle East conflict. Sadly, little has changed in the 40 years since the writing of this statement, as Israel continues to expand into Palestinian territory, to deny the rights of refugees, and "to discover how much more aggression the world will tolerate" (empirical answer: quite a lot):
"The development of the crisis in the Middle East is both dangerous and instructive. For over 20 years Israel has expanded by force of arms. After every stage in this expansion Israel has appealed to 鈥渞eason鈥� and has suggested 鈥渘egotiations鈥�. This is the traditional role of the imperial power, because it wishes to consolidate with the least difficulty what it has already taken by violence. Every new conquest becomes the new basis of the proposed negotiation from strength, which ignores the injustice of the previous aggression. The aggression committed by Israel must be condemned, not only because no state has the right to annex foreign territory, but because every expansion is an experiment to discover how much more aggression the world will tolerate.
The refugees who surround Palestine in their hundreds of thousands were described recently by the Washington journalist I.F. Stone as 鈥渢he moral millstone around the neck of world Jewry.鈥� Many of the refugees are now well into the third decade of their precarious existence in temporary settlements. The tragedy of the people of Palestine is that their country was 鈥済iven鈥� by a foreign Power to another people for the creation of a new State. The result was that many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made permanently homeless. With every new conflict their number have increased. How much longer is the world willing to endure this spectacle of wanton cruelty? It is abundantly clear that the refugees have every right to the homeland from which they were driven, and the denial of this right is at the heart of the continuing conflict. 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? A permanent just settlement of the refugees in their homeland is an essential ingredient of any genuine settlement in the Middle East.
We are frequently told that we must sympathize with Israel because of the suffering of the Jews in Europe at the hands of the Nazis. I see in this suggestion no reason to perpetuate any suffering. What Israel is doing today cannot be condoned, and to invoke the horrors of the past to justify those of the present is gross hypocrisy. Not only does Israel condemn a vast number of refugees to misery; not only are many Arabs under occupation condemned to military rule; but also Israel condemns the Arab nations only recently emerging from colonial status to continued impoverishment as military demands take precedence over national development.
All who want to see an end to bloodshed in the Middle East must ensure that any settlement does not contain the seeds of future conflict. Justice requires that the first step towards a settlement must be an Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied in June, 1967. A new world campaign is needed to help bring justice to the long-suffering people of the Middle East."
"The development of the crisis in the Middle East is both dangerous and instructive. For over 20 years Israel has expanded by force of arms. After every stage in this expansion Israel has appealed to 鈥渞eason鈥� and has suggested 鈥渘egotiations鈥�. This is the traditional role of the imperial power, because it wishes to consolidate with the least difficulty what it has already taken by violence. Every new conquest becomes the new basis of the proposed negotiation from strength, which ignores the injustice of the previous aggression. The aggression committed by Israel must be condemned, not only because no state has the right to annex foreign territory, but because every expansion is an experiment to discover how much more aggression the world will tolerate.
The refugees who surround Palestine in their hundreds of thousands were described recently by the Washington journalist I.F. Stone as 鈥渢he moral millstone around the neck of world Jewry.鈥� Many of the refugees are now well into the third decade of their precarious existence in temporary settlements. The tragedy of the people of Palestine is that their country was 鈥済iven鈥� by a foreign Power to another people for the creation of a new State. The result was that many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made permanently homeless. With every new conflict their number have increased. How much longer is the world willing to endure this spectacle of wanton cruelty? It is abundantly clear that the refugees have every right to the homeland from which they were driven, and the denial of this right is at the heart of the continuing conflict. 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? A permanent just settlement of the refugees in their homeland is an essential ingredient of any genuine settlement in the Middle East.
We are frequently told that we must sympathize with Israel because of the suffering of the Jews in Europe at the hands of the Nazis. I see in this suggestion no reason to perpetuate any suffering. What Israel is doing today cannot be condoned, and to invoke the horrors of the past to justify those of the present is gross hypocrisy. Not only does Israel condemn a vast number of refugees to misery; not only are many Arabs under occupation condemned to military rule; but also Israel condemns the Arab nations only recently emerging from colonial status to continued impoverishment as military demands take precedence over national development.
All who want to see an end to bloodshed in the Middle East must ensure that any settlement does not contain the seeds of future conflict. Justice requires that the first step towards a settlement must be an Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied in June, 1967. A new world campaign is needed to help bring justice to the long-suffering people of the Middle East."
August 21, 2018
This 895-pager (including the index), could alternatively have been titled, just as fittingly, and perhaps even more accurately, "Bertrand Russell's Opinions of Western Philosophers". And, though you now have my opinion as well, don't let that deter you from approaching this well-written work.
His broad overview of Western philosophy was published in 1945, toward the end of World War II, and includes brief to medium length chapters on many major philosophers, from the pre-Socratics to John Dewey. Russell has divided this work into three major divisions: 1. Ancient Philosophy, from the rise of Greek civilization through Plotinus (approx. 6th century to A.D. 270), 2. Catholic Philosophy, from Augustine to William of Occam (approx. 339 to 1350), and 3. Modern Philosophy, from the Italian Renaissance to John Dewey (approx. 1350 to 1945).
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. He clearly is a man of deep intellect, vast historical knowledge, and very clear and pointed, occasionally controversial, opinions. I also found the care he takes in placing these individuals, and their thought, into the flow of the historical timeline, and the current events of their day, to be quite helpful.
As I read this, what impressed me the most was the clarity with which Bertrand Russell wrote. Maybe I expected a large survey of philosophy to be next to incomprehensible, who knows? But Russell's writing was very clear, interesting, organized, and typically easy to follow, particularly when he worked to summarize the dense, almost impenetrable writings of some of these philosophers into understandable key concepts.
Definitely recommended to anyone with enough interest in the subject to persevere for over 800 pages. You likely won't agree with all of Russell's views, but you'll appreciate his more than considerable knowledge and his skill as a writer.
His broad overview of Western philosophy was published in 1945, toward the end of World War II, and includes brief to medium length chapters on many major philosophers, from the pre-Socratics to John Dewey. Russell has divided this work into three major divisions: 1. Ancient Philosophy, from the rise of Greek civilization through Plotinus (approx. 6th century to A.D. 270), 2. Catholic Philosophy, from Augustine to William of Occam (approx. 339 to 1350), and 3. Modern Philosophy, from the Italian Renaissance to John Dewey (approx. 1350 to 1945).
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. He clearly is a man of deep intellect, vast historical knowledge, and very clear and pointed, occasionally controversial, opinions. I also found the care he takes in placing these individuals, and their thought, into the flow of the historical timeline, and the current events of their day, to be quite helpful.
As I read this, what impressed me the most was the clarity with which Bertrand Russell wrote. Maybe I expected a large survey of philosophy to be next to incomprehensible, who knows? But Russell's writing was very clear, interesting, organized, and typically easy to follow, particularly when he worked to summarize the dense, almost impenetrable writings of some of these philosophers into understandable key concepts.
Definitely recommended to anyone with enough interest in the subject to persevere for over 800 pages. You likely won't agree with all of Russell's views, but you'll appreciate his more than considerable knowledge and his skill as a writer.
July 22, 2015
A very subjective history of philosophy. Russell makes it very clear what he thinks of every philosopher mentioned and it's not very hard to see who he likes and who he dislikes.
The first part of the book on Ancient Philosophy I thought was excellent and very fascinating. The variety of thought and ideas here was really incredible and made for very easy and interesting reading throughout. In fact, once I had finished Russell's examination of Plato I decided to read three of Plato's dialogues, all of which I enjoyed. This book starts with Thales and moves all the way to Plotinus, before it continues into the second book, which is on Catholic Philosophy.
The second book isn't nearly as riveting as the first. A lot of this I found to be rather tedious and not as fun to read as the book before it. However, I was inspired to read St. Augustine's Confessions, and I also bought a collection of writings of St. Thomas Aquinas. Although tedious, it definitely had a lot of interesting things to say.
The third and last part is on Modern Philosophy, dealing with the renaissance and up. This was, much like the first book, really fascinating and was relatively interesting to read. There was only one thing that really bugged me in this book and that was the omission of Kierkegaard. One would think that a history of philosophy would at least contain a mention of him, but alas! This book, like the others, also inspired me to dig a little further and I've acquired Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature, Spinoza's Ethics, and finally Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit.
All in all a very fascinating read which flows along nicely, spiced with Russell's wit and opinions. Definitely a book I enjoyed but hardly more than three stars. As a short introduction to every philosopher this certainly does the job.
The first part of the book on Ancient Philosophy I thought was excellent and very fascinating. The variety of thought and ideas here was really incredible and made for very easy and interesting reading throughout. In fact, once I had finished Russell's examination of Plato I decided to read three of Plato's dialogues, all of which I enjoyed. This book starts with Thales and moves all the way to Plotinus, before it continues into the second book, which is on Catholic Philosophy.
The second book isn't nearly as riveting as the first. A lot of this I found to be rather tedious and not as fun to read as the book before it. However, I was inspired to read St. Augustine's Confessions, and I also bought a collection of writings of St. Thomas Aquinas. Although tedious, it definitely had a lot of interesting things to say.
The third and last part is on Modern Philosophy, dealing with the renaissance and up. This was, much like the first book, really fascinating and was relatively interesting to read. There was only one thing that really bugged me in this book and that was the omission of Kierkegaard. One would think that a history of philosophy would at least contain a mention of him, but alas! This book, like the others, also inspired me to dig a little further and I've acquired Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature, Spinoza's Ethics, and finally Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit.
All in all a very fascinating read which flows along nicely, spiced with Russell's wit and opinions. Definitely a book I enjoyed but hardly more than three stars. As a short introduction to every philosopher this certainly does the job.
April 8, 2025
I can't say that I loved it, but it kept my attention throughout.
A History of Western Philosophy (1945) by Bertrand Russell (1872鈥�1970) is more precisely a chronological summary of the emergence and development of the various philosophies and an abstract (and critique) of the philosopher's schools of thought.
Geographically starting from the eastern Mediterranean region and sunsetting in Western Europe. There was an honorable mention of a few American philosophers, but no mention of Emerson or Thoreau which was a bit surprising.
A quarter of this thick book was dedicated to the teaching, interpretations and evolution of the Church which was well done.
Not an easy book to write. Although, I've learned a lot more reading the original works of the Western philosophers. However, reading this book has inspired me to continue my introduction to philosophy by looking into the works of Berkeley, Rousseau and Bergson. For those interested in reading classical and modern philosophy here is a list of books I read and would recommend:
1. The Trial and Death of Socrates: Four Dialogues 399 BCE by Plato
2. The Republic 375 BCE by Plato
3. Timaeus 360 BCE by Plato
4. On the Heavens 350 BCE by Aristotle
5. On the Generation and Corruption 350 BCE by Aristotle
6. Nicomachean Ethics 349 BCE by Aristotle
7. Physics 340 BCE by Aristotle
8. Metaphysics 330 BCE by Aristotle
9. The Essential Epicurus 272 BCE by Epicurus
10. Letters on Ethics: To Lucilius 64 by Seneca
11. Discourses and Selected Writings 108 by Epictetus
12. Meditations 180 by Marcus Aurelius
13. The Prince 1513 by Niccolo Machiavelli
14. Harmonies of the World 1619 by Johannes Kepler
15. The World and Other Writings 1629-1633 by Rene Descartes
16. The Discourse of the Method 1637 by Rene Descartes
17. Meditations on First Philosophy 1641 by Rene Descartes
18. Principles of Philosophy 1644 by Rene Descartes
19. Theological-Political Treatise 1670 by Baruch Spinoza
20. Ethics 1677 by Baruch Spinoza
21. Two Treatises of Government 1689 by John Locke
22. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding 1690 by John Locke
23. Corpuscular Philosophy: Selected Works 1738-1765 by Mikhail Lomonosov
24. A Treatise of Human Nature 1739 by David Hume
25. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding 1748 by David Hume
26. Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens 1755 by Immanuel Kant
27. Candide 1759 by Voltaire
28. Critique of Pure Reason 1781 by Immanuel Kant
29. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals 1785 by Immanuel Kant
30. Metaphysical Foundation of Natural Science 1786 by Immanuel Kant
31. Phenomenology of Spirit 1807 by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
32. Faust, and the Urfaust 1808 & 1832 by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
33. Self-Reliance and Other Essays 1844 by Ralph Waldo Emerson
34. The Wisdom of Life 1851 by Arthur Schopenhauer
35. Civil Disobedience and Other Essays 1866 by Henry David Thoreau
36. Thus Spoke Zarathustra 1883 by Friedrich Nietzsche
37. Memoirs of a Revolutionist 1899 by Peter Kropotkin
38. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus 1921 by Ludwig Wittgenstein
39. A History of Western Philosophy 1945 by Bertrand Russell
A History of Western Philosophy (1945) by Bertrand Russell (1872鈥�1970) is more precisely a chronological summary of the emergence and development of the various philosophies and an abstract (and critique) of the philosopher's schools of thought.
Geographically starting from the eastern Mediterranean region and sunsetting in Western Europe. There was an honorable mention of a few American philosophers, but no mention of Emerson or Thoreau which was a bit surprising.
A quarter of this thick book was dedicated to the teaching, interpretations and evolution of the Church which was well done.
Not an easy book to write. Although, I've learned a lot more reading the original works of the Western philosophers. However, reading this book has inspired me to continue my introduction to philosophy by looking into the works of Berkeley, Rousseau and Bergson. For those interested in reading classical and modern philosophy here is a list of books I read and would recommend:
1. The Trial and Death of Socrates: Four Dialogues 399 BCE by Plato
2. The Republic 375 BCE by Plato
3. Timaeus 360 BCE by Plato
4. On the Heavens 350 BCE by Aristotle
5. On the Generation and Corruption 350 BCE by Aristotle
6. Nicomachean Ethics 349 BCE by Aristotle
7. Physics 340 BCE by Aristotle
8. Metaphysics 330 BCE by Aristotle
9. The Essential Epicurus 272 BCE by Epicurus
10. Letters on Ethics: To Lucilius 64 by Seneca
11. Discourses and Selected Writings 108 by Epictetus
12. Meditations 180 by Marcus Aurelius
13. The Prince 1513 by Niccolo Machiavelli
14. Harmonies of the World 1619 by Johannes Kepler
15. The World and Other Writings 1629-1633 by Rene Descartes
16. The Discourse of the Method 1637 by Rene Descartes
17. Meditations on First Philosophy 1641 by Rene Descartes
18. Principles of Philosophy 1644 by Rene Descartes
19. Theological-Political Treatise 1670 by Baruch Spinoza
20. Ethics 1677 by Baruch Spinoza
21. Two Treatises of Government 1689 by John Locke
22. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding 1690 by John Locke
23. Corpuscular Philosophy: Selected Works 1738-1765 by Mikhail Lomonosov
24. A Treatise of Human Nature 1739 by David Hume
25. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding 1748 by David Hume
26. Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens 1755 by Immanuel Kant
27. Candide 1759 by Voltaire
28. Critique of Pure Reason 1781 by Immanuel Kant
29. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals 1785 by Immanuel Kant
30. Metaphysical Foundation of Natural Science 1786 by Immanuel Kant
31. Phenomenology of Spirit 1807 by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
32. Faust, and the Urfaust 1808 & 1832 by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
33. Self-Reliance and Other Essays 1844 by Ralph Waldo Emerson
34. The Wisdom of Life 1851 by Arthur Schopenhauer
35. Civil Disobedience and Other Essays 1866 by Henry David Thoreau
36. Thus Spoke Zarathustra 1883 by Friedrich Nietzsche
37. Memoirs of a Revolutionist 1899 by Peter Kropotkin
38. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus 1921 by Ludwig Wittgenstein
39. A History of Western Philosophy 1945 by Bertrand Russell
March 14, 2020
賳賲賷丿賵賳賲 丕賷賳賰賴 賮賱爻賮赖 禺賵賳丿賳 乇賵 亘丕 趩賳賷賳 賰鬲丕亘賷 卮乇賵毓 賰乇丿賲 丕賷丿賴 賷 禺賵亘賷 亘賵丿 賷丕 賳賴..
賵賱賷 亘賴 賴乇 丨丕賱 丕賱丕賳 賰賴 噩賱丿 賷賰 丕賷賳 丕孬乇 乇賵 鬲賲賵賲 賰乇丿賲 賲賷鬲賵賳賲 丿乇 賲噩賲賵毓 亘诏賲 賰賴 賵丕爻賴 賲賳 鬲丕 丨丿賵丿賷 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 禺賵亘賷 亘賵丿
丕賱亘鬲賴 鬲丕 賲丿鬲賷 爻乇丕睾 噩賱丿賴丕賷 亘毓丿賷 賳賲賷乇賲 賵 賰鬲丕亘丕賷賷 禺丕乇噩 丕夭 丨賷胤賴 賮賱爻賮赖 賲賷禺賵賳賲 鬲丕 匕賴賳賲 禺爻鬲賴 賳卮賴..
賷賰賷 丕夭 丕賷乇丕丿賴丕賷賷 賰賴 亘賴 丕賷賳 丕孬乇 诏爻鬲乇丿賴 乇丕爻賱 诏乇賮鬲賴 賲賷卮賴 丕賷賳賴 賰賴 夭賲賷賳賴 賵爻賷毓賷 乇賵 丿乇 亘乇 诏乇賮鬲賴 賵 丨丿丕賯賱 亘賴鬲乇 丕賷賳賴 賰賴 賵賯鬲賷 趩賳賷賳 賲噩賲賵毓賴 丕賷 賳賵卮鬲賴 賲賷卮賴 亘賴 賯賱賲 賳賵賷爻賳丿诏丕賳 賲禺鬲賱賮 亘丕卮賴..卮禺氐 乇丕爻賱 亘賴 丕賷賳 賲賵囟賵毓 丕匕毓丕賳 賲賷賰賳賴 賵賱賷 亘賴 賳馗乇 賲賳 亘丕 丕賷賳賰賴 丕賷賳 賲賲賰賳賴 賷賴 丕賷乇丕丿 亘丕卮賴 賵賱賷 趩賷夭 賲賴賲賷 賳賷爻鬲..趩賵賳 賲賳 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 禺賵丕賳賳丿賴 賲賷丿賵賳賲 丿丕乇賲 賳馗乇丕鬲 卮禺氐 乇丕爻賱 丿乇亘丕乇賴 賮賱丕賳 賮賷賱爻賵賮 賵 亘賴賲丕賳 賮賱爻賮赖 乇賵 賲賷禺賵賳賲 賵 賲賷丿賵賳賲 賰賴 賳亘丕賷丿 亘賴 丕賷賳 賳馗乇賴丕 亘毓賳賵丕賳 賲乇噩毓 賳诏丕賴 賰賳賲..
(丕賷賳 賷賰賷 丕夭 丕賷乇丕丿賴丕賷 丿賷诏賴 丕賷 賴爻鬲 賰賴 亘賴 丕賷賳 賰鬲丕亘 诏乇賮鬲賳丿)
賲胤賲卅賳丕 亘賴鬲乇賷賳 乇丕賴 亘乇丕賷 丕卮賳丕 卮丿賳 亘丕 賮賱爻賮赖 賵 噩賴丕賳 亘賷賳賷 賴乇 賮賷賱爻賵賮賷 丕賷賳賴 賰賴 賰鬲丕亘 賵 乇爻丕賱賴 賴丕賷 賴賲賵賳 賮賷賱爻賵賮 乇賵 亘禺賵賳賷丿..賲孬賱丕 "噩賲賴賵乇賷" 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳貙 乇爻丕賱賴 "丕禺賱丕賯 賳賷賰賵賲丕禺賵爻" 丕乇爻胤賵 賷丕 "鬲丕賲賱丕鬲" 賲丕乇賰賵爻 丕賵乇賱賷賵爻 乇賵 亘賴 鬲賳賴丕賷賷 賲胤丕賱毓賴 賰賳賷丿 賵賱賷 丕賷賳噩賵乇賷 爻丕賱賴丕 胤賵賱 賲賷賰卮賴 鬲丕 亘丕 賰賱賷鬲 賴賲賴 賮賱爻賮赖 賴丕 丕卮賳丕 亘卮賷丿..
亘丕 丕賷賳丨丕賱 賲賳 賳賲賷丿賵賳賲 賰賴 丕氐賱丕 丕賷丕 賲賷卮賴 "鬲丕乇賷禺 賮賱爻賮赖 睾乇亘" 乇賵 賷賴 丕孬乇 賲乇噩毓 亘賴 丨爻丕亘 丕賵乇丿 賷丕 賳賴 賵賱賷 趩賷夭賷 賰賴 毓賷丕賳 賴爻鬲 卮賲丕 亘丕 亘禺卮 賲賴賲賷 丕夭 丿賷丿诏丕賴賴丕賷 賮賱爻賮賷 丕卮賳丕 賲賷卮賷丿..
乇丕爻賱 賮賱爻賮赖 乇賵 丨丿 賵爻胤 丕賱賴賷丕鬲 賵 毓賱賲 賲賷丿賵賳賴..賲賷诏賴 賮賱爻賮赖 賲孬賱 丕賱賴賷丕鬲 毓亘丕乇鬲 丕夭 鬲賮賰乇 丿乇亘丕乇賴 賲賵囟賵毓丕鬲賷 賰賴 鬲丕賰賳賵賳 亘賴 丿爻鬲 丕賵乇丿賳 丿丕賳卮 賯胤毓賷 丿乇亘丕乇賴 卮丕賳 賲賷爻乇 賳卮丿賴 亘丕卮丿 賵 賲丕賳賳丿 毓賱賲 亘賴 毓賯賱 亘卮乇 鬲賰賷賴 丿丕乇賴 賳賴 亘賴 丿賱丕賷賱 賳賯賱賷貙 禺賵丕賴 賲乇丕丿 丕夭 丕賷賳 丿賱丕賷賱 爻賳鬲 亘丕卮丿貙 禺賵丕賴 賵丨賷 賵 賲賰丕卮賮賴..
丨丕賱丕 賲賷倬乇爻賷賲 "毓賱賲" 趩賷爻鬲 賵 "丕賱賴賷丕鬲" 趩賷爻鬲責
乇丕爻賱 賴乇诏賵賳賴 "丿丕賳卮 賯胤毓賷" 乇丕 毓賱賲 賲賷丿丕賳丿 賵 賴乇诏賵賳賴 "毓賯賷丿賴 噩夭賲賷" 賰賴 丕夭 丨丿 丿丕賳卮 賯胤毓賷 賯丿賲 賮乇丕鬲乇 亘诏匕丕乇丿 丕賱賴賷丕鬲 賲賷丿丕賳丿.
乇丕爻賱 賲賷诏賵賷丿 丿乇 賲賷丕賳 丕賱賴賷丕鬲 賵 毓賱賲 亘乇夭禺賷 賳賷夭 賴爻鬲 賳丕賲賰卮賵賮 亘乇丕賷 賴乇 丿賵 賵 丿乇 賲毓乇囟 丨賲賱賴 賴乇 丿賵 噩丕賳亘貙 丕賷賳 亘乇夭禺 賴賲丕賳 賮賱爻賮赖 丕爻鬲.
丕孬乇 丿乇 亘乇禺賷 亘禺卮 賴丕 倬賷趩賷丿賴 賲賷卮賵丿 賵 丕賷賳 亘賴 睾賷乇 丕夭 倬賷趩賷丿诏賷 賵 賳賷夭 诏賳诏 賵 賲亘賴賲 亘賵丿賳 丕賳 賮賱爻賮赖賽 亘賴 禺氐賵氐 卮丕賷丿 丕賷乇丕丿 賰丕乇 乇丕爻賱 亘丕卮丿 賰賴 賳鬲賵丕爻鬲賴 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲 爻丕丿賴 亘賷丕賳 賰賳丿.
丕賱亘鬲賴 賰賴 亘賴 鬲乇噩賲賴 賴丕賷 賳噩賮 丿乇賷丕 亘賳丿乇賷 賳賲賷卮賵丿 丕賷乇丕丿 诏乇賮鬲 賵賱賷 賲賷卮丿 賰賴 賲孬賱丕 亘噩丕賷 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 丕夭 賵丕跇诏丕賳 孬賯賷賱賷 賲孬賱 乇賯賷鬲: 亘乇丿诏賷貙 丕乇鬲卮丕: 乇卮賵賴 禺賵丕乇賷貙 賲賳鬲夭毓: 賲賳賮賰 賵...丕夭 賲毓賳丕賷 爻丕丿賴 鬲乇 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 賲賷賰乇丿.
賲鬲丕爻賮丕賳賴 亘賴 丿賱賷賱 丨噩賲 丕賳亘賵賴 賲胤丕賱亘 賰鬲丕亘 鬲賵囟賷丨 賲賮氐賱賷 賳賲賷鬲賵丕賳賲 亘賳賵賷爻賲..
賰鬲丕亘 鬲丕乇賷禺 賮賱爻賮赖 睾乇亘貙 噩賱丿 丕賵賱 卮丕賲賱 爻賴 亘禺卮 賷丕 爻賴 賰鬲丕亘 丕爻鬲:
賰鬲丕亘 丕賵賱貨 賮賱爻賮赖 賯丿賷賲:
亘賴 賲毓乇賮賷 賮賱爻賮赖 倬賷卮 丕夭 爻賯乇丕胤貙 賲匕賴亘 亘丕賰賵爻賷 賵 賰賷卮 丕賵乇賮卅賵爻賷 賰賴 丿乇 賮賱爻賮赖 賮賷孬丕睾賵乇爻 鬲丕孬賷乇 亘爻賷丕乇賷 丿丕卮鬲 賵 賳賷夭 卮賰賱 诏賷乇賷 賵 賯丿乇鬲 诏乇賮鬲賳 鬲賲丿賳 賷賵賳丕賳賷 倬爻 丕夭 卮賰爻鬲 丕鬲賳 丕夭 禺卮丕賷丕乇卮丕 賲賷倬乇丿丕夭丿
賰鬲丕亘 丿賵賲貨 爻賯乇丕胤貙 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 賵 丕乇爻胤賵
丕賷賳 亘禺卮 亘賴 賲毓乇賮賷 賮賱爻賮赖 爻賴 鬲賳 丕夭 亘夭乇诏丕賳 賮賱爻賮赖 賲賷倬乇丿丕夭丿. 爻賯乇丕胤 賰鬲丕亘 賷丕 乇爻丕賱賴 丕賷 丕夭 禺賵丿 亘噩丕賷 賳诏匕丕卮鬲賴貙 丿乇 賴賮鬲丕丿 爻丕賱诏賷 丿乇 丿丕丿诏丕賴賷 亘賴 丕鬲賴丕賲 卮乇賰 亘賴 丕毓丿丕賲 賲丨賰賵賲 賲賷卮賵丿. 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 亘乇 禺賱丕賮 爻賯乇丕胤 孬乇賵鬲賲賳丿 亘賵丿賴 賵 亘丿賵賳 賵丕賴賲賴 亘賴 鬲丨氐賷賱 賵 丕賲賵夭卮 賮賱爻賮赖 賲賷倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴.. 賲賴賲鬲乇賷賳 丕賷丿賴 賴丕賷卮 賳馗乇賷賴 賲購孬購賱 賵 賳馗乇賷賴 爻丕禺鬲 賷賰 丕乇賲丕賳卮賴乇 亘乇 丕爻丕爻 爻賷爻鬲賲賷 賲鬲卮賰賱 丕夭 賯賵丕賳賷賳 禺賵丿卮 丕爻鬲 賰賴 丕爻丕爻卮 亘賳丕 賰乇丿賳 噩丕賲毓賴 丕賷 亘毓賳賵丕賳 賷賰 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 賰賱賷 賵 亘夭乇诏 丕爻鬲. 倬爻 丕夭 丕賵 丕乇爻胤賵 賲卮賴賵乇鬲乇賷賳 賮賷賱爻賵賮 丿賳賷丕賷 亘丕爻鬲丕賳 亘賵丿賴.
賰鬲丕亘 爻賵賲貨 賮賱爻賮赖 亘丕爻鬲丕賳賷 倬爻 丕夭 丕乇爻胤賵
賷賵賳丕賳 賯丿乇鬲 禺賵丿 乇丕 丕夭 丿爻鬲 丿丕丿賴 賵 乇賵賲 鬲亘丿賷賱 亘賴 丕賲倬乇丕胤賵乇賷 丕賵賱 丿賳賷丕 卮丿賴..乇賵賲賷 賴丕 丿乇 賲賯丕亘賱 賷賵賳丕賳賷 賴丕 丕賮乇丕丿賷 賳丕亘禺乇丿貙 亘賷 賴賳乇 賵 亘賴 丿賵乇 丕夭 丕丿丕亘 丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷 亘賵丿賳丿 賵賱賷 丕夭 賱丨丕馗 賴賲亘爻鬲诏賷 爻賷丕爻賷 賵 爻賱丨卮賵乇賷 亘乇鬲乇 丕夭 丕賳賴丕 亘賵丿賳丿.賮賱爻賮赖 丿乇 丕賷賳 丿賵乇丕賳 賳夭賵賱 賲賷賰賳丿 亘丕 丕賷賳丨丕賱 賲賰丕鬲亘 賲賴賲賷 賴賲趩賵賳 賰賱亘賷丕賳 賵 卮賰丕賰丕賳貙 丕倬賷賰賵乇賷丕賳貙 乇賵丕賯賷丕賳 賵 丿乇 丕禺乇 賮賱賵胤賷賳 賷丕 賳賵 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳賷丕賳 倬丿賷丿 丕賲丿賳丿..
丕诏乇 賳馗乇 禺賵丿賲 丿乇亘丕乇賴 丕賷賳 賮賱爻賮赖 賴丕 賵 賮賷賱爻賵賮丕賳 乇丕 亘禺賵丕賴賲 亘诏賵賷賲 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲 賰賱賷 賰丕賲賱丕 爻乇 禺賵乇丿賴 卮丿賲..亘賷 卮賰 亘爻賷丕乇賷 丕夭 丕賳賴丕 丕賮乇丕丿賷 丿丕賳卮賲賳丿 亘賵丿賴 丕賳丿 賵 亘賴 毓賱賲 賵 乇賷丕囟賷 賳賷夭 賰賲賰 賰乇丿賴 丕賳丿 (丕賱亘鬲賴 亘爻賷丕乇賷 丕夭 丕賳賴丕 賴賲 丿趩丕乇 禺乇丕賮丕鬲 亘賵丿賴 丕賳丿) 賵賱賷 丨鬲賷 賴賲丕賳賴丕 賴賲 賲卮賰賱丕鬲 亘爻賷丕乇賷 丿乇 賳馗乇賷賴 賴丕賷卮丕賳 丿丕卮鬲賴 丕賳丿. 爻賯乇丕胤 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丿丕卮鬲賴 賰賴 倬爻 丕夭 賲乇诏卮 賴賲賳卮賷賳 禺丿丕賷丕賳 賲賷卮賵丿 賵 亘賴 賴賲賷賳 丿賱賷賱 丿乇 丿丕丿诏丕賴卮 鬲賯丕囟丕賷 毓賮賵 賳賲賷賰賳丿. 丕賵 賲毓鬲賯丿 亘賵丿賴 賰賴 爻乇賵卮 毓丕賱賲 睾賷亘賷 丕賵 乇丕 賴丿丕賷鬲 賲賷賰賳丿 賵 丿乇 賷賰 丕賳丿乇夭 丕禺賱丕賯賷 賲賷诏賵賷丿 夭賷丕賳 馗賱賲 亘乇丕賷 馗丕賱賲 亘賷卮 丕夭 賲馗賱賵賲 丕爻鬲. 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 丕賷丿賴 賷 亘爻賷丕乇 毓噩賷亘賷 丿乇亘丕乇賴 賷賵鬲賵倬賷丕 丕乇丕卅賴 賲賷丿賴丿 賰賴 噩丿丕賷 丕夭 毓賲賱賷 賳亘賵丿賳卮 賳卮丕賳 賲賷丿賴丿 賰賴 趩賯丿乇 丕賮賰丕乇卮 丿賷賰鬲丕鬲賵乇 賲賳卮丕賳賴貙 囟丿 夭賳貙 囟丿 賰賵丿賰丕賳貙 囟丿 亘乇丿賴 賴丕 賵 噩賳诏 胤賱亘丕賳賴 亘賵丿賴 丕爻鬲. 丕賵 賳馗乇賷賴 賲購孬購賱 乇丕 亘乇丕賷 丨賱 賲爻卅賱賴 賱丕賷賳丨賱 噩賴丕賳 賴爻鬲賷 丕乇丕卅賴 賲賷丿賴丿 賰賴 賲丕賳賳丿 賳馗乇賷賴 賴丕賷 爻丕賷乇 賮賷賱爻賵賮丕賳 趩賷夭賷 亘賷卮鬲乇 丕夭 丨丿爻 賵 诏賲丕賳 賷丕 亘賷丕賳 丕賳趩賴 賰賴 丿睾丿睾賴 丕卮 亘賵丿賴 賳賷爻鬲 賵 亘賴 亘賯丕賷 乇賵丨 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丿丕卮鬲賴..
丕乇爻胤賵 亘賴 賳馗乇賷賴 賲購孬購賱 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 丕賷乇丕丿 賲賷诏乇賮鬲 賵 丿乇 賲賯丕亘賱 賳馗乇賷賴 賰賱賷丕鬲 賵 賲乇丿 爻賵賲 乇丕 倬賷卮 賰卮賷丿. 丕賵 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 亘乇賴丕賳 丕氐賱賷 丕孬亘丕鬲 賵噩賵丿 禺丿丕 亘乇賴丕賳 "毓賱鬲 賳禺爻鬲賷賳" 丕爻鬲 亘丿賷賳 賲毓賳賷 賰賴 亘丕賷丿 趩賷夭賷 亘丕卮丿 賰賴 噩賳亘卮 乇丕 倬丿賷丿 賲賷 丕賵乇丿.
丕賵 亘乇 禺賱丕賮 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 賲毓鬲賯丿 亘賵丿 乇賵丨 亘毓丿 丕夭 賲乇诏 丕夭 亘賷賳 賲賷乇賵丿. 丕賲丕 賷賰賷 丕夭 噩丕賱亘鬲乇賷賳 賳馗乇賷賴 賴丕賷 丕賵 賳馗乇賷賴 "賲賷丕賳賴 乇賵賷" 丕爻鬲. 丕賵 賴乇 賮囟賷賱鬲賷 乇丕 丨丿 賵爻胤 丕賮乇丕胤 賵 鬲賮乇賷胤 賲賷丿丕賳丿 賰賴 賴乇 賰丿丕賲 丿乇 噩丕賷 禺賵丿 乇匕賷賱鬲 丕賳丿. 卮噩丕毓鬲 丨丿 賵爻胤 亘夭丿賱賷 賵 亘賷 倬乇賵丕賷賷 爻鬲貙 爻禺丕賵鬲 丨丿 賵爻胤 鬲亘匕賷乇 賵 亘禺賱 丕爻鬲貙 毓夭鬲 賳賮爻 丨丿 賵爻胤 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴賷 賵 禺丕賰爻丕乇賷 爻鬲貙 賳賰鬲賴 爻賳噩賷 丨丿 賵爻胤 賱賵丿诏賷 賵 禺卮賰賷 爻鬲貙 丕夭乇賲 丨丿 賵爻胤 賰賲乇賵賷賷 賵 丿乇賷丿诏賷 爻鬲..丕賲丕 丕賷乇丕丿賷 賰賴 亘賴 丕賳 賵丕乇丿 丕爻鬲 丕賷賳 丕爻鬲 賰賴 亘乇禺賷 賮囟賷賱鬲賴丕 賲丕賳賳丿 乇丕爻鬲诏賵賷賷 丨丿 賵爻胤 趩賷爻鬲責 丕乇爻胤賵 丕賳 乇丕 丨丿 賵爻胤 賱丕賮 夭賳賷 賵 賮乇賵鬲賳賷 丿乇賵睾賷賳 賲賷丿丕賳丿 賰賴 賰丕賲賱丕 賲卮禺氐 丕爻鬲 爻賮爻胤賴 丕爻鬲. 囟賲賳丕 丕賵 亘乇丿诏丕賳貙 乇毓丕賷丕貙 夭賳丕賳 賵 賰賵丿賰丕賳 乇丕 丨賯賷乇 鬲乇 丕夭 賲乇丿丕賳 賲賷卮賲丕乇丿. 賵 亘賴 亘乇丿诏賷 诏乇賮鬲賳 丕爻乇丕 賵 胤乇賮 賲睾賱賵亘 噩賳诏 乇丕 亘丕 丕賷賳 亘乇賴丕賳 賰賴 胤乇賮賷 賰賴 噩賳诏 乇丕 亘乇丿賴 丕氐賵賱丕 賮囟賷賱鬲 亘賷卮鬲乇賷 丿丕卮鬲賴 鬲丕賷賷丿 賲賷賰乇丿賴.趩賷夭賷 賰賴 亘賴 賳馗乇 賲賷乇爻丿 丕賷賳 丕爻鬲 賰賴 丕賵 丕丨爻丕爻 賮賵賯 賳丕爻賷賵賳丕賱賷爻鬲賷 丿丕卮鬲賴 賵 亘乇丿賴 亘賵丿賳 賷賵賳丕賳賷 賴丕 乇丕 賲噩丕夭 賳賲賷丿丕賳爻鬲賴. 亘丕 賳馗乇賷賴 賲丿賷賳賴 賮丕囟賱賴 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 賲禺丕賱賮 亘賵丿賴 賵 賲毓鬲賯丿 亘賵丿賴 丕賳趩賴 賲賷丕賳 丕賮乇丕丿賿 賲卮鬲乇賰賿 亘丕卮丿 賰賲鬲乇賷賳 鬲賵噩賴 乇丕 丿乇賷丕賮鬲 禺賵丕賴丿 賰乇丿. 囟賲賳丕 丕賵 胤乇丕丨 賳馗乇賷賴 賯賷丕爻 丿乇 賲賳胤賯 賳賷夭 賴爻鬲 賰賴 鬲丕孬賷乇 亘爻賷丕乇賷 丿乇 賮賱爻賮赖 诏匕丕卮鬲. 丕夭 丕賳噩丕 賰賴 賮囟丕賷 亘賷卮鬲乇賷 亘乇丕賷 賳賵卮鬲賳 賳賷爻鬲 氐乇賮丕 賳馗乇 卮禺氐 禺賵丿賲 乇丕 丕亘乇丕夭 賲賷賰賳賲 賵 賮賰乇 賲賷賰賳賲 亘賷賳 鬲賲丕賲 丕賷賳 賮賱爻賮赖 賴丕 賵 賲賰丕鬲亘 賰賴 丿乇 丕賷賳 噩賱丿 賲毓乇賮賷 卮丿賳丿 "丕鬲賵賲賷爻鬲賴丕" 賰賴 亘乇 禺賱丕賮 爻丕賷乇 賲賰丕鬲亘 亘賴 丿賳亘丕賱 睾丕賷鬲 丿賳賷丕 賳亘賵丿賳丿貙 "爻賵賮爻胤丕賷賷丕賳" 賰賴 亘賴 賳賵毓賷 賰乇丿丕乇卮丕賳 禺賵丿 賮賱爻賮赖 乇丕 夭賷乇 爻賵丕賱 賲賷亘乇丿 賵 亘賴 賴賲賷賳 丿賱賷賱 丿卮賲賳丕賳 夭賷丕丿賷 丿丕卮鬲賳丿貙 丕倬賷賰賵乇賷丕賳 賵 乇賵丕賯賷丕賳 噩匕丕亘 鬲乇 丕夭 爻丕賷乇賷賳 亘賵丿賳丿.
賵賱賷 亘賴 賴乇 丨丕賱 丕賱丕賳 賰賴 噩賱丿 賷賰 丕賷賳 丕孬乇 乇賵 鬲賲賵賲 賰乇丿賲 賲賷鬲賵賳賲 丿乇 賲噩賲賵毓 亘诏賲 賰賴 賵丕爻賴 賲賳 鬲丕 丨丿賵丿賷 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 禺賵亘賷 亘賵丿
丕賱亘鬲賴 鬲丕 賲丿鬲賷 爻乇丕睾 噩賱丿賴丕賷 亘毓丿賷 賳賲賷乇賲 賵 賰鬲丕亘丕賷賷 禺丕乇噩 丕夭 丨賷胤賴 賮賱爻賮赖 賲賷禺賵賳賲 鬲丕 匕賴賳賲 禺爻鬲賴 賳卮賴..
賷賰賷 丕夭 丕賷乇丕丿賴丕賷賷 賰賴 亘賴 丕賷賳 丕孬乇 诏爻鬲乇丿賴 乇丕爻賱 诏乇賮鬲賴 賲賷卮賴 丕賷賳賴 賰賴 夭賲賷賳賴 賵爻賷毓賷 乇賵 丿乇 亘乇 诏乇賮鬲賴 賵 丨丿丕賯賱 亘賴鬲乇 丕賷賳賴 賰賴 賵賯鬲賷 趩賳賷賳 賲噩賲賵毓賴 丕賷 賳賵卮鬲賴 賲賷卮賴 亘賴 賯賱賲 賳賵賷爻賳丿诏丕賳 賲禺鬲賱賮 亘丕卮賴..卮禺氐 乇丕爻賱 亘賴 丕賷賳 賲賵囟賵毓 丕匕毓丕賳 賲賷賰賳賴 賵賱賷 亘賴 賳馗乇 賲賳 亘丕 丕賷賳賰賴 丕賷賳 賲賲賰賳賴 賷賴 丕賷乇丕丿 亘丕卮賴 賵賱賷 趩賷夭 賲賴賲賷 賳賷爻鬲..趩賵賳 賲賳 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 禺賵丕賳賳丿賴 賲賷丿賵賳賲 丿丕乇賲 賳馗乇丕鬲 卮禺氐 乇丕爻賱 丿乇亘丕乇賴 賮賱丕賳 賮賷賱爻賵賮 賵 亘賴賲丕賳 賮賱爻賮赖 乇賵 賲賷禺賵賳賲 賵 賲賷丿賵賳賲 賰賴 賳亘丕賷丿 亘賴 丕賷賳 賳馗乇賴丕 亘毓賳賵丕賳 賲乇噩毓 賳诏丕賴 賰賳賲..
(丕賷賳 賷賰賷 丕夭 丕賷乇丕丿賴丕賷 丿賷诏賴 丕賷 賴爻鬲 賰賴 亘賴 丕賷賳 賰鬲丕亘 诏乇賮鬲賳丿)
賲胤賲卅賳丕 亘賴鬲乇賷賳 乇丕賴 亘乇丕賷 丕卮賳丕 卮丿賳 亘丕 賮賱爻賮赖 賵 噩賴丕賳 亘賷賳賷 賴乇 賮賷賱爻賵賮賷 丕賷賳賴 賰賴 賰鬲丕亘 賵 乇爻丕賱賴 賴丕賷 賴賲賵賳 賮賷賱爻賵賮 乇賵 亘禺賵賳賷丿..賲孬賱丕 "噩賲賴賵乇賷" 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳貙 乇爻丕賱賴 "丕禺賱丕賯 賳賷賰賵賲丕禺賵爻" 丕乇爻胤賵 賷丕 "鬲丕賲賱丕鬲" 賲丕乇賰賵爻 丕賵乇賱賷賵爻 乇賵 亘賴 鬲賳賴丕賷賷 賲胤丕賱毓賴 賰賳賷丿 賵賱賷 丕賷賳噩賵乇賷 爻丕賱賴丕 胤賵賱 賲賷賰卮賴 鬲丕 亘丕 賰賱賷鬲 賴賲賴 賮賱爻賮赖 賴丕 丕卮賳丕 亘卮賷丿..
亘丕 丕賷賳丨丕賱 賲賳 賳賲賷丿賵賳賲 賰賴 丕氐賱丕 丕賷丕 賲賷卮賴 "鬲丕乇賷禺 賮賱爻賮赖 睾乇亘" 乇賵 賷賴 丕孬乇 賲乇噩毓 亘賴 丨爻丕亘 丕賵乇丿 賷丕 賳賴 賵賱賷 趩賷夭賷 賰賴 毓賷丕賳 賴爻鬲 卮賲丕 亘丕 亘禺卮 賲賴賲賷 丕夭 丿賷丿诏丕賴賴丕賷 賮賱爻賮賷 丕卮賳丕 賲賷卮賷丿..
乇丕爻賱 賮賱爻賮赖 乇賵 丨丿 賵爻胤 丕賱賴賷丕鬲 賵 毓賱賲 賲賷丿賵賳賴..賲賷诏賴 賮賱爻賮赖 賲孬賱 丕賱賴賷丕鬲 毓亘丕乇鬲 丕夭 鬲賮賰乇 丿乇亘丕乇賴 賲賵囟賵毓丕鬲賷 賰賴 鬲丕賰賳賵賳 亘賴 丿爻鬲 丕賵乇丿賳 丿丕賳卮 賯胤毓賷 丿乇亘丕乇賴 卮丕賳 賲賷爻乇 賳卮丿賴 亘丕卮丿 賵 賲丕賳賳丿 毓賱賲 亘賴 毓賯賱 亘卮乇 鬲賰賷賴 丿丕乇賴 賳賴 亘賴 丿賱丕賷賱 賳賯賱賷貙 禺賵丕賴 賲乇丕丿 丕夭 丕賷賳 丿賱丕賷賱 爻賳鬲 亘丕卮丿貙 禺賵丕賴 賵丨賷 賵 賲賰丕卮賮賴..
丨丕賱丕 賲賷倬乇爻賷賲 "毓賱賲" 趩賷爻鬲 賵 "丕賱賴賷丕鬲" 趩賷爻鬲責
乇丕爻賱 賴乇诏賵賳賴 "丿丕賳卮 賯胤毓賷" 乇丕 毓賱賲 賲賷丿丕賳丿 賵 賴乇诏賵賳賴 "毓賯賷丿賴 噩夭賲賷" 賰賴 丕夭 丨丿 丿丕賳卮 賯胤毓賷 賯丿賲 賮乇丕鬲乇 亘诏匕丕乇丿 丕賱賴賷丕鬲 賲賷丿丕賳丿.
乇丕爻賱 賲賷诏賵賷丿 丿乇 賲賷丕賳 丕賱賴賷丕鬲 賵 毓賱賲 亘乇夭禺賷 賳賷夭 賴爻鬲 賳丕賲賰卮賵賮 亘乇丕賷 賴乇 丿賵 賵 丿乇 賲毓乇囟 丨賲賱賴 賴乇 丿賵 噩丕賳亘貙 丕賷賳 亘乇夭禺 賴賲丕賳 賮賱爻賮赖 丕爻鬲.
丕孬乇 丿乇 亘乇禺賷 亘禺卮 賴丕 倬賷趩賷丿賴 賲賷卮賵丿 賵 丕賷賳 亘賴 睾賷乇 丕夭 倬賷趩賷丿诏賷 賵 賳賷夭 诏賳诏 賵 賲亘賴賲 亘賵丿賳 丕賳 賮賱爻賮赖賽 亘賴 禺氐賵氐 卮丕賷丿 丕賷乇丕丿 賰丕乇 乇丕爻賱 亘丕卮丿 賰賴 賳鬲賵丕爻鬲賴 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲 爻丕丿賴 亘賷丕賳 賰賳丿.
丕賱亘鬲賴 賰賴 亘賴 鬲乇噩賲賴 賴丕賷 賳噩賮 丿乇賷丕 亘賳丿乇賷 賳賲賷卮賵丿 丕賷乇丕丿 诏乇賮鬲 賵賱賷 賲賷卮丿 賰賴 賲孬賱丕 亘噩丕賷 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 丕夭 賵丕跇诏丕賳 孬賯賷賱賷 賲孬賱 乇賯賷鬲: 亘乇丿诏賷貙 丕乇鬲卮丕: 乇卮賵賴 禺賵丕乇賷貙 賲賳鬲夭毓: 賲賳賮賰 賵...丕夭 賲毓賳丕賷 爻丕丿賴 鬲乇 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 賲賷賰乇丿.
賲鬲丕爻賮丕賳賴 亘賴 丿賱賷賱 丨噩賲 丕賳亘賵賴 賲胤丕賱亘 賰鬲丕亘 鬲賵囟賷丨 賲賮氐賱賷 賳賲賷鬲賵丕賳賲 亘賳賵賷爻賲..
賰鬲丕亘 鬲丕乇賷禺 賮賱爻賮赖 睾乇亘貙 噩賱丿 丕賵賱 卮丕賲賱 爻賴 亘禺卮 賷丕 爻賴 賰鬲丕亘 丕爻鬲:
賰鬲丕亘 丕賵賱貨 賮賱爻賮赖 賯丿賷賲:
亘賴 賲毓乇賮賷 賮賱爻賮赖 倬賷卮 丕夭 爻賯乇丕胤貙 賲匕賴亘 亘丕賰賵爻賷 賵 賰賷卮 丕賵乇賮卅賵爻賷 賰賴 丿乇 賮賱爻賮赖 賮賷孬丕睾賵乇爻 鬲丕孬賷乇 亘爻賷丕乇賷 丿丕卮鬲 賵 賳賷夭 卮賰賱 诏賷乇賷 賵 賯丿乇鬲 诏乇賮鬲賳 鬲賲丿賳 賷賵賳丕賳賷 倬爻 丕夭 卮賰爻鬲 丕鬲賳 丕夭 禺卮丕賷丕乇卮丕 賲賷倬乇丿丕夭丿
賰鬲丕亘 丿賵賲貨 爻賯乇丕胤貙 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 賵 丕乇爻胤賵
丕賷賳 亘禺卮 亘賴 賲毓乇賮賷 賮賱爻賮赖 爻賴 鬲賳 丕夭 亘夭乇诏丕賳 賮賱爻賮赖 賲賷倬乇丿丕夭丿. 爻賯乇丕胤 賰鬲丕亘 賷丕 乇爻丕賱賴 丕賷 丕夭 禺賵丿 亘噩丕賷 賳诏匕丕卮鬲賴貙 丿乇 賴賮鬲丕丿 爻丕賱诏賷 丿乇 丿丕丿诏丕賴賷 亘賴 丕鬲賴丕賲 卮乇賰 亘賴 丕毓丿丕賲 賲丨賰賵賲 賲賷卮賵丿. 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 亘乇 禺賱丕賮 爻賯乇丕胤 孬乇賵鬲賲賳丿 亘賵丿賴 賵 亘丿賵賳 賵丕賴賲賴 亘賴 鬲丨氐賷賱 賵 丕賲賵夭卮 賮賱爻賮赖 賲賷倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴.. 賲賴賲鬲乇賷賳 丕賷丿賴 賴丕賷卮 賳馗乇賷賴 賲購孬購賱 賵 賳馗乇賷賴 爻丕禺鬲 賷賰 丕乇賲丕賳卮賴乇 亘乇 丕爻丕爻 爻賷爻鬲賲賷 賲鬲卮賰賱 丕夭 賯賵丕賳賷賳 禺賵丿卮 丕爻鬲 賰賴 丕爻丕爻卮 亘賳丕 賰乇丿賳 噩丕賲毓賴 丕賷 亘毓賳賵丕賳 賷賰 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴 賰賱賷 賵 亘夭乇诏 丕爻鬲. 倬爻 丕夭 丕賵 丕乇爻胤賵 賲卮賴賵乇鬲乇賷賳 賮賷賱爻賵賮 丿賳賷丕賷 亘丕爻鬲丕賳 亘賵丿賴.
賰鬲丕亘 爻賵賲貨 賮賱爻賮赖 亘丕爻鬲丕賳賷 倬爻 丕夭 丕乇爻胤賵
賷賵賳丕賳 賯丿乇鬲 禺賵丿 乇丕 丕夭 丿爻鬲 丿丕丿賴 賵 乇賵賲 鬲亘丿賷賱 亘賴 丕賲倬乇丕胤賵乇賷 丕賵賱 丿賳賷丕 卮丿賴..乇賵賲賷 賴丕 丿乇 賲賯丕亘賱 賷賵賳丕賳賷 賴丕 丕賮乇丕丿賷 賳丕亘禺乇丿貙 亘賷 賴賳乇 賵 亘賴 丿賵乇 丕夭 丕丿丕亘 丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷 亘賵丿賳丿 賵賱賷 丕夭 賱丨丕馗 賴賲亘爻鬲诏賷 爻賷丕爻賷 賵 爻賱丨卮賵乇賷 亘乇鬲乇 丕夭 丕賳賴丕 亘賵丿賳丿.賮賱爻賮赖 丿乇 丕賷賳 丿賵乇丕賳 賳夭賵賱 賲賷賰賳丿 亘丕 丕賷賳丨丕賱 賲賰丕鬲亘 賲賴賲賷 賴賲趩賵賳 賰賱亘賷丕賳 賵 卮賰丕賰丕賳貙 丕倬賷賰賵乇賷丕賳貙 乇賵丕賯賷丕賳 賵 丿乇 丕禺乇 賮賱賵胤賷賳 賷丕 賳賵 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳賷丕賳 倬丿賷丿 丕賲丿賳丿..
丕诏乇 賳馗乇 禺賵丿賲 丿乇亘丕乇賴 丕賷賳 賮賱爻賮赖 賴丕 賵 賮賷賱爻賵賮丕賳 乇丕 亘禺賵丕賴賲 亘诏賵賷賲 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲 賰賱賷 賰丕賲賱丕 爻乇 禺賵乇丿賴 卮丿賲..亘賷 卮賰 亘爻賷丕乇賷 丕夭 丕賳賴丕 丕賮乇丕丿賷 丿丕賳卮賲賳丿 亘賵丿賴 丕賳丿 賵 亘賴 毓賱賲 賵 乇賷丕囟賷 賳賷夭 賰賲賰 賰乇丿賴 丕賳丿 (丕賱亘鬲賴 亘爻賷丕乇賷 丕夭 丕賳賴丕 賴賲 丿趩丕乇 禺乇丕賮丕鬲 亘賵丿賴 丕賳丿) 賵賱賷 丨鬲賷 賴賲丕賳賴丕 賴賲 賲卮賰賱丕鬲 亘爻賷丕乇賷 丿乇 賳馗乇賷賴 賴丕賷卮丕賳 丿丕卮鬲賴 丕賳丿. 爻賯乇丕胤 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丿丕卮鬲賴 賰賴 倬爻 丕夭 賲乇诏卮 賴賲賳卮賷賳 禺丿丕賷丕賳 賲賷卮賵丿 賵 亘賴 賴賲賷賳 丿賱賷賱 丿乇 丿丕丿诏丕賴卮 鬲賯丕囟丕賷 毓賮賵 賳賲賷賰賳丿. 丕賵 賲毓鬲賯丿 亘賵丿賴 賰賴 爻乇賵卮 毓丕賱賲 睾賷亘賷 丕賵 乇丕 賴丿丕賷鬲 賲賷賰賳丿 賵 丿乇 賷賰 丕賳丿乇夭 丕禺賱丕賯賷 賲賷诏賵賷丿 夭賷丕賳 馗賱賲 亘乇丕賷 馗丕賱賲 亘賷卮 丕夭 賲馗賱賵賲 丕爻鬲. 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 丕賷丿賴 賷 亘爻賷丕乇 毓噩賷亘賷 丿乇亘丕乇賴 賷賵鬲賵倬賷丕 丕乇丕卅賴 賲賷丿賴丿 賰賴 噩丿丕賷 丕夭 毓賲賱賷 賳亘賵丿賳卮 賳卮丕賳 賲賷丿賴丿 賰賴 趩賯丿乇 丕賮賰丕乇卮 丿賷賰鬲丕鬲賵乇 賲賳卮丕賳賴貙 囟丿 夭賳貙 囟丿 賰賵丿賰丕賳貙 囟丿 亘乇丿賴 賴丕 賵 噩賳诏 胤賱亘丕賳賴 亘賵丿賴 丕爻鬲. 丕賵 賳馗乇賷賴 賲購孬購賱 乇丕 亘乇丕賷 丨賱 賲爻卅賱賴 賱丕賷賳丨賱 噩賴丕賳 賴爻鬲賷 丕乇丕卅賴 賲賷丿賴丿 賰賴 賲丕賳賳丿 賳馗乇賷賴 賴丕賷 爻丕賷乇 賮賷賱爻賵賮丕賳 趩賷夭賷 亘賷卮鬲乇 丕夭 丨丿爻 賵 诏賲丕賳 賷丕 亘賷丕賳 丕賳趩賴 賰賴 丿睾丿睾賴 丕卮 亘賵丿賴 賳賷爻鬲 賵 亘賴 亘賯丕賷 乇賵丨 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丿丕卮鬲賴..
丕乇爻胤賵 亘賴 賳馗乇賷賴 賲購孬購賱 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 丕賷乇丕丿 賲賷诏乇賮鬲 賵 丿乇 賲賯丕亘賱 賳馗乇賷賴 賰賱賷丕鬲 賵 賲乇丿 爻賵賲 乇丕 倬賷卮 賰卮賷丿. 丕賵 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 亘乇賴丕賳 丕氐賱賷 丕孬亘丕鬲 賵噩賵丿 禺丿丕 亘乇賴丕賳 "毓賱鬲 賳禺爻鬲賷賳" 丕爻鬲 亘丿賷賳 賲毓賳賷 賰賴 亘丕賷丿 趩賷夭賷 亘丕卮丿 賰賴 噩賳亘卮 乇丕 倬丿賷丿 賲賷 丕賵乇丿.
丕賵 亘乇 禺賱丕賮 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 賲毓鬲賯丿 亘賵丿 乇賵丨 亘毓丿 丕夭 賲乇诏 丕夭 亘賷賳 賲賷乇賵丿. 丕賲丕 賷賰賷 丕夭 噩丕賱亘鬲乇賷賳 賳馗乇賷賴 賴丕賷 丕賵 賳馗乇賷賴 "賲賷丕賳賴 乇賵賷" 丕爻鬲. 丕賵 賴乇 賮囟賷賱鬲賷 乇丕 丨丿 賵爻胤 丕賮乇丕胤 賵 鬲賮乇賷胤 賲賷丿丕賳丿 賰賴 賴乇 賰丿丕賲 丿乇 噩丕賷 禺賵丿 乇匕賷賱鬲 丕賳丿. 卮噩丕毓鬲 丨丿 賵爻胤 亘夭丿賱賷 賵 亘賷 倬乇賵丕賷賷 爻鬲貙 爻禺丕賵鬲 丨丿 賵爻胤 鬲亘匕賷乇 賵 亘禺賱 丕爻鬲貙 毓夭鬲 賳賮爻 丨丿 賵爻胤 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴賷 賵 禺丕賰爻丕乇賷 爻鬲貙 賳賰鬲賴 爻賳噩賷 丨丿 賵爻胤 賱賵丿诏賷 賵 禺卮賰賷 爻鬲貙 丕夭乇賲 丨丿 賵爻胤 賰賲乇賵賷賷 賵 丿乇賷丿诏賷 爻鬲..丕賲丕 丕賷乇丕丿賷 賰賴 亘賴 丕賳 賵丕乇丿 丕爻鬲 丕賷賳 丕爻鬲 賰賴 亘乇禺賷 賮囟賷賱鬲賴丕 賲丕賳賳丿 乇丕爻鬲诏賵賷賷 丨丿 賵爻胤 趩賷爻鬲責 丕乇爻胤賵 丕賳 乇丕 丨丿 賵爻胤 賱丕賮 夭賳賷 賵 賮乇賵鬲賳賷 丿乇賵睾賷賳 賲賷丿丕賳丿 賰賴 賰丕賲賱丕 賲卮禺氐 丕爻鬲 爻賮爻胤賴 丕爻鬲. 囟賲賳丕 丕賵 亘乇丿诏丕賳貙 乇毓丕賷丕貙 夭賳丕賳 賵 賰賵丿賰丕賳 乇丕 丨賯賷乇 鬲乇 丕夭 賲乇丿丕賳 賲賷卮賲丕乇丿. 賵 亘賴 亘乇丿诏賷 诏乇賮鬲賳 丕爻乇丕 賵 胤乇賮 賲睾賱賵亘 噩賳诏 乇丕 亘丕 丕賷賳 亘乇賴丕賳 賰賴 胤乇賮賷 賰賴 噩賳诏 乇丕 亘乇丿賴 丕氐賵賱丕 賮囟賷賱鬲 亘賷卮鬲乇賷 丿丕卮鬲賴 鬲丕賷賷丿 賲賷賰乇丿賴.趩賷夭賷 賰賴 亘賴 賳馗乇 賲賷乇爻丿 丕賷賳 丕爻鬲 賰賴 丕賵 丕丨爻丕爻 賮賵賯 賳丕爻賷賵賳丕賱賷爻鬲賷 丿丕卮鬲賴 賵 亘乇丿賴 亘賵丿賳 賷賵賳丕賳賷 賴丕 乇丕 賲噩丕夭 賳賲賷丿丕賳爻鬲賴. 亘丕 賳馗乇賷賴 賲丿賷賳賴 賮丕囟賱賴 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳 賲禺丕賱賮 亘賵丿賴 賵 賲毓鬲賯丿 亘賵丿賴 丕賳趩賴 賲賷丕賳 丕賮乇丕丿賿 賲卮鬲乇賰賿 亘丕卮丿 賰賲鬲乇賷賳 鬲賵噩賴 乇丕 丿乇賷丕賮鬲 禺賵丕賴丿 賰乇丿. 囟賲賳丕 丕賵 胤乇丕丨 賳馗乇賷賴 賯賷丕爻 丿乇 賲賳胤賯 賳賷夭 賴爻鬲 賰賴 鬲丕孬賷乇 亘爻賷丕乇賷 丿乇 賮賱爻賮赖 诏匕丕卮鬲. 丕夭 丕賳噩丕 賰賴 賮囟丕賷 亘賷卮鬲乇賷 亘乇丕賷 賳賵卮鬲賳 賳賷爻鬲 氐乇賮丕 賳馗乇 卮禺氐 禺賵丿賲 乇丕 丕亘乇丕夭 賲賷賰賳賲 賵 賮賰乇 賲賷賰賳賲 亘賷賳 鬲賲丕賲 丕賷賳 賮賱爻賮赖 賴丕 賵 賲賰丕鬲亘 賰賴 丿乇 丕賷賳 噩賱丿 賲毓乇賮賷 卮丿賳丿 "丕鬲賵賲賷爻鬲賴丕" 賰賴 亘乇 禺賱丕賮 爻丕賷乇 賲賰丕鬲亘 亘賴 丿賳亘丕賱 睾丕賷鬲 丿賳賷丕 賳亘賵丿賳丿貙 "爻賵賮爻胤丕賷賷丕賳" 賰賴 亘賴 賳賵毓賷 賰乇丿丕乇卮丕賳 禺賵丿 賮賱爻賮赖 乇丕 夭賷乇 爻賵丕賱 賲賷亘乇丿 賵 亘賴 賴賲賷賳 丿賱賷賱 丿卮賲賳丕賳 夭賷丕丿賷 丿丕卮鬲賳丿貙 丕倬賷賰賵乇賷丕賳 賵 乇賵丕賯賷丕賳 噩匕丕亘 鬲乇 丕夭 爻丕賷乇賷賳 亘賵丿賳丿.
October 19, 2023
Koliko sam ranije manje vrednovao ovu knjigu - neverovatno. 膶ini mi se da je to bila posledica studiranja filozofije i u膷enja istorije filozofije 4 godine, odnosno osam semestara, a on se lik na拧ao da sve spakuje u jednu knjigu. Dodu拧e, u pitanju je jedna duga膷ka knjiga ali opeet samo jedna, jbg.
Isto toliko koliko sam ranije imao manje razumevanja za ovu knjigu, sad mi prija da 膷itam poglavlja o Plotinu npr. ili o Bajronu. Otkud Bajrona me膽u zvani膷ne filozofe?
Ina膷e, jedan profesor na Filozofskom fakultetu mi je jednom dao jako dobar savet: "膶uvajte se 膷itanja istorija filozofije koje su pisali veliki filozofi, jer oni ih uvek provla膷e kroz svoje vizure i razra膷unavaju se nepo拧teno sa onima 膷ija mi拧ljenja im ne odgovaraju." Savet je odli膷an, ali mislim da se vi拧e odnosi na na primer Hegelovu Istoriju filozofije nego na ovu "malu" pristrasnu istoriju filozofije Bertranda Rasela.
Izdanje Izdava膷ko-拧tamparskog preduze膰a "Kosmos" (ne taj Kosmos, drugi Kosmos, lep拧i i stariji), 膷uvena edicija "Karijatide" iz 1962. godine - preporuka svima; 拧ta god iz te edicije da uzmete bi膰e vam zanimljivo.
Isto toliko koliko sam ranije imao manje razumevanja za ovu knjigu, sad mi prija da 膷itam poglavlja o Plotinu npr. ili o Bajronu. Otkud Bajrona me膽u zvani膷ne filozofe?
Ina膷e, jedan profesor na Filozofskom fakultetu mi je jednom dao jako dobar savet: "膶uvajte se 膷itanja istorija filozofije koje su pisali veliki filozofi, jer oni ih uvek provla膷e kroz svoje vizure i razra膷unavaju se nepo拧teno sa onima 膷ija mi拧ljenja im ne odgovaraju." Savet je odli膷an, ali mislim da se vi拧e odnosi na na primer Hegelovu Istoriju filozofije nego na ovu "malu" pristrasnu istoriju filozofije Bertranda Rasela.
Izdanje Izdava膷ko-拧tamparskog preduze膰a "Kosmos" (ne taj Kosmos, drugi Kosmos, lep拧i i stariji), 膷uvena edicija "Karijatide" iz 1962. godine - preporuka svima; 拧ta god iz te edicije da uzmete bi膰e vam zanimljivo.
December 25, 2019
I know I'm supposed to start with Greeks. I've heard Bertrand Russell is biased. And for no apparent reason I skipped ancient and catholic philosophy. So having read only modern philosophy(about 400 pages) , I can say that Bertrand Russell is pretty concise, accessible and definitely based; and he's not trying to hide it. Neitzsches chapter does seem like a hard roasting. 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. Either way, I've found good amount of original texts to read further.
January 30, 2020
Leggetelo! Lungo quanto i fratelli karamazov, ma molto pi霉 divertente e avvincente. si chiacchiera sempre un mucchio, ci sono anche qui i figli che uccidono i padri, al "tutto 猫 permesso" di Iv脿n si sostituisce il pi霉 placido "tutto scorre" di Eraclito, e il grande inquisitore 猫 un uomo con la faccia da satiro e il naso camuso!
October 7, 2019
FINALLY!
As my first philosophy book, this sure was heavy; however, it was extremely interesting and thought-provoking as well!
As my first philosophy book, this sure was heavy; however, it was extremely interesting and thought-provoking as well!
June 2, 2019
O melhor do livro 茅 sem d煤vida o derrube de v谩rios mitos e ideias criadas no imagin谩rio ocidental a prop贸sito da extensa linha temporal de fil贸sofos que liga S贸crates a Russell. Pode-se dizer que se aprende imenso, que no final da leitura se v锚 a produ莽茫o de conhecimento, e os seus principais respons谩veis, a uma luz totalmente distinta. Apesar de sabermos que temos de colocar algum trav茫o nas impress玫es imediata, j谩 que Russell n茫o se co铆be nunca de ser cr铆tico, mesmo quando est谩 a falar de milhares de anos atr谩s, em contextos sociais completamente opostos 脿quele em que hoje vivemos. Leia-se com calma, sempre com o filtro cr铆tico ativo, preparado para por vezes ter de dar a volta a cabe莽a tentando compreender o que Russell nos quer dizer, mas acima de tudo leia-se pelo prazer de viajar pela hist贸ria das ideias.
Para se poder criar um bom crivo cr铆tico desta leitura 茅 preciso come莽ar por compreender a bagagem de Russell, algu茅m que come莽ou por estudar matem谩tica e filosofia naquilo que mais une ambas as disciplinas, a l贸gica, a partir do que viria lan莽ar a corrente de pensamento que ficou conhecida como: filosofia anal铆tica. Como se depreender谩, este cen谩rio faz de Russell um racionalista, e 茅 exatamente por isso que precisamos de ler todo o livro com algumas cautelas. O racionalismo funciona a partir de propriedades imensamente relevantes no que toca 脿 cria莽茫o de conhecimento, assente numa base em que a argumenta莽茫o l贸gica 茅 o cerne, contudo padece de alguns problemas. Desde logo, os racionalistas assumem que tudo tem de ter uma l贸gica, que tudo tem de ter uma causa, que o conhecimento se constr贸i 脿 imagem de uma equa莽茫o matem谩tica que tudo pode explicar. Na verdade, existem dom铆nios em que esta forma de inquirir faz sentido, contudo n茫o 茅 pass铆vel de se poder aplicar a toda a realidade, menos ainda quando entramos na 贸rbita da defini莽茫o do ser-humano.
Por isso, n茫o 茅 de estranhar que Russell ataque praticamente todos os fil贸sofos que lista ao longo das v谩rias centenas de p谩ginas. Russell realiza a sua Hist贸ria como arguente de provas, estando sempre 脿 procura nas teses dos outros de problemas e defeitos, falhando demasiadas vezes no enaltecimento dos seus feitos e contributos, agravando as acusa莽玫es realizadas pelo olhar totalmente racional que usa. Ou seja, a sua filosofia anal铆tica n茫o comporta espa莽o para uma an谩lise contextualizada pelo tempo em que as ideias foram produzidas, interessado apenas no como se comportam essas ideias quando passadas pelo filtro da l贸gica atual. Deste modo Russell come莽a logo por atacar fortemente S贸crates, seguido de Plat茫o, e at茅 mesmo Arist贸teles que diz admirar, e a quem tece alguns dos maiores elogios, acaba bastante mal-tratado. Por vezes, 茅 preciso dar alguma raz茫o a Russell, a "Rep煤blica" de Plat茫o 茅 realmente um manifesto em defesa do autoritarismo, mas da铆 a dizer que S贸crates provavelmente nunca existiu e pode ter sido inventado por Plat茫o... Noutro campo, e gra莽as 脿 sua veia cr铆tica, 茅 interessante ver como desmonta os mitos de Esparta, nomeadamente o seu criador Plutarco.
Repare-se tamb茅m como Russell imbu铆do do seu esp铆rito l贸gico descarta totalmente Seneca, numa 煤nica linha, simplesmente porque este foi imensamente rico, o que para Russell choca totalmente com os valores professados. Adianto que me deixei convencer alguns dias por esta abordagem, mas refletindo sobre alguns dos personagens mais ricos da nossa contemporaneidade como Warren Buffet ou Bill Gates, podemos ver como o facto de ser rico n茫o 茅 incompat铆vel com os valores est贸icos. O problema dos sistemas estritamente l贸gicos 茅 que n茫o admitem exce莽玫es. Do mesmo modo, ou talvez ainda mais agressivamente, Russell ignora completamente a Fenomenologia, apesar de no entanto nos apresentar nos dois 煤ltimos autores, toda a escola do Pragmatismo, ainda que essa sua apresenta莽茫o sirva apenas para demonstrar o qu茫o errada estava, para Russell.
Repare-se que aquilo que Russell apresenta e aquilo que ignora n茫o 茅 fruto de falta de espa莽o, Russell chega a dedicar um cap铆tulo a Byron, um poeta. Por isso, na verdade aquilo que Russell faz 茅 montar uma Hist贸ria que v谩 de encontro 脿 sua mundovis茫o, e nesse sentido f谩-lo com grande qualidade, j谩 que n茫o se limita a trabalhar ideias e conceitos, contextualiza, nalguns casos de modo muito profuso, com o sentir social e seus impactos pol铆ticos. Ali谩s, 茅 por isso mesmo que cita Byron, pelo impacto que teve no desenvolvimento do romantismo que por sua vez viria a contaminar todo um s茅culo intelectual. Mas n茫o deixo de considerar estranho que algu茅m profundamente ateu, e determinado na defesa do racional l贸gico, invista tanto tempo do livro 脿 discuss茫o da filosofia cat贸lica. Sobre este 煤ltimo ponto, tenho de dizer que 茅 algo que sempre me tinha feito alguma confus茫o, o modo como a filosofia estava t茫o carregada de religi茫o, de deuses ou for莽as universais que tudo explicavam. Russell interessantemente n茫o embarca, antes exp玫e o problema como um dos maiores da filosofia: paradoxalmente os pensadores mais racionalistas eram quem mais acreditava numa entidade externa, j谩 que ao definirem o universo como um sistema l贸gico, em que tudo tinha de obedecer a um conjunto de regras perfeitas, matematicamente puras, os tornava ref茅ns de uma entidade superior, a 煤nica capaz de gizar tal molde. Seria apenas com Darwin, e a partir do seu evolucionismo que faria surgir a teoria do Big Bang, que os racionalistas se conseguiriam desprender dessa entidade.
O livro 茅 extenso, mas considero que uma parte demasiada grande foi dedicada 脿 pre-hist贸ria da filosofia e aos seus intervalos, isto porque ao chegar 脿 Filosofia Moderna, final da era medieval, Renascen莽a, Iluminismo e atualidade, teria sido bom dedicar-lhe muito mais espa莽o. S茫o muito, demasiado curtas, as discuss玫es sobre Descartes, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, James e Dewey e ficaram de fora nomes que mereciam ter sido chamados 脿 discuss茫o, nomeadamente homens da ci锚ncia, que como o pr贸prio Russell diz, passou a fazer parte da pr贸pria hist贸ria da filosofia: Galileu, Newton, Einstein. Por outro lado, a Hist贸ria termina em 1945, o que deixa de fora muito do que se germinava nesses anos e viria a ganhar relevo, para al茅m de toda a segunda metade do s茅culo XX. Ainda assim, o trabalho realizado por Russell 茅 imensamente detalhado, mais ainda se tivermos em aten莽茫o que foi feito sem recurso 脿 internet que hoje a tudo d谩 acesso imediatamente, e num tempo de segunda guerra mundial.
Deixo um testemunho do pr贸prio Russell sobre os vieses que lhe apontam no livro, que deixou num apontamento na sua autobiografia:
"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. I did my best, but I am not at all sure that I succeeded.
I was sometimes accused by reviewers of writing not a true history but a biased account of the events that I arbitrarily chose to write of. But to my mind, a man without a bias cannot write interesting history 鈥� if, indeed, such a man exists. I regard it as mere humbug to pretend to lack of bias. Moreoever, a book, like any other work, should be held together by its point of view. This is why a book made up of essays by various authors is apt to be less interesting as an entity than a book by one man. Since I do not admit that a person without bias exists, I think the best that can be done with a large-scale history is to admit one鈥檚 bias and for dissatisfied readers to look for other writers to express an opposite bias. Which bias is nearer to the truth must be left to posterity.鈥� Russell, (1968), "Autobiography", p. 444
Nota: A leitura foi feita entre a edi莽茫o audio em ingl锚s da Audible e a edi莽茫o em livro em portugu锚s da Rel贸gio d'脕gua. Muitas vezes me vi obrigado a parar o audio, para poder mais tarde retomar a leitura no papel e em maior sossego para confrontar e compreender as ideias.
Publicado no VI:
Para se poder criar um bom crivo cr铆tico desta leitura 茅 preciso come莽ar por compreender a bagagem de Russell, algu茅m que come莽ou por estudar matem谩tica e filosofia naquilo que mais une ambas as disciplinas, a l贸gica, a partir do que viria lan莽ar a corrente de pensamento que ficou conhecida como: filosofia anal铆tica. Como se depreender谩, este cen谩rio faz de Russell um racionalista, e 茅 exatamente por isso que precisamos de ler todo o livro com algumas cautelas. O racionalismo funciona a partir de propriedades imensamente relevantes no que toca 脿 cria莽茫o de conhecimento, assente numa base em que a argumenta莽茫o l贸gica 茅 o cerne, contudo padece de alguns problemas. Desde logo, os racionalistas assumem que tudo tem de ter uma l贸gica, que tudo tem de ter uma causa, que o conhecimento se constr贸i 脿 imagem de uma equa莽茫o matem谩tica que tudo pode explicar. Na verdade, existem dom铆nios em que esta forma de inquirir faz sentido, contudo n茫o 茅 pass铆vel de se poder aplicar a toda a realidade, menos ainda quando entramos na 贸rbita da defini莽茫o do ser-humano.
Por isso, n茫o 茅 de estranhar que Russell ataque praticamente todos os fil贸sofos que lista ao longo das v谩rias centenas de p谩ginas. Russell realiza a sua Hist贸ria como arguente de provas, estando sempre 脿 procura nas teses dos outros de problemas e defeitos, falhando demasiadas vezes no enaltecimento dos seus feitos e contributos, agravando as acusa莽玫es realizadas pelo olhar totalmente racional que usa. Ou seja, a sua filosofia anal铆tica n茫o comporta espa莽o para uma an谩lise contextualizada pelo tempo em que as ideias foram produzidas, interessado apenas no como se comportam essas ideias quando passadas pelo filtro da l贸gica atual. Deste modo Russell come莽a logo por atacar fortemente S贸crates, seguido de Plat茫o, e at茅 mesmo Arist贸teles que diz admirar, e a quem tece alguns dos maiores elogios, acaba bastante mal-tratado. Por vezes, 茅 preciso dar alguma raz茫o a Russell, a "Rep煤blica" de Plat茫o 茅 realmente um manifesto em defesa do autoritarismo, mas da铆 a dizer que S贸crates provavelmente nunca existiu e pode ter sido inventado por Plat茫o... Noutro campo, e gra莽as 脿 sua veia cr铆tica, 茅 interessante ver como desmonta os mitos de Esparta, nomeadamente o seu criador Plutarco.
Repare-se tamb茅m como Russell imbu铆do do seu esp铆rito l贸gico descarta totalmente Seneca, numa 煤nica linha, simplesmente porque este foi imensamente rico, o que para Russell choca totalmente com os valores professados. Adianto que me deixei convencer alguns dias por esta abordagem, mas refletindo sobre alguns dos personagens mais ricos da nossa contemporaneidade como Warren Buffet ou Bill Gates, podemos ver como o facto de ser rico n茫o 茅 incompat铆vel com os valores est贸icos. O problema dos sistemas estritamente l贸gicos 茅 que n茫o admitem exce莽玫es. Do mesmo modo, ou talvez ainda mais agressivamente, Russell ignora completamente a Fenomenologia, apesar de no entanto nos apresentar nos dois 煤ltimos autores, toda a escola do Pragmatismo, ainda que essa sua apresenta莽茫o sirva apenas para demonstrar o qu茫o errada estava, para Russell.
Repare-se que aquilo que Russell apresenta e aquilo que ignora n茫o 茅 fruto de falta de espa莽o, Russell chega a dedicar um cap铆tulo a Byron, um poeta. Por isso, na verdade aquilo que Russell faz 茅 montar uma Hist贸ria que v谩 de encontro 脿 sua mundovis茫o, e nesse sentido f谩-lo com grande qualidade, j谩 que n茫o se limita a trabalhar ideias e conceitos, contextualiza, nalguns casos de modo muito profuso, com o sentir social e seus impactos pol铆ticos. Ali谩s, 茅 por isso mesmo que cita Byron, pelo impacto que teve no desenvolvimento do romantismo que por sua vez viria a contaminar todo um s茅culo intelectual. Mas n茫o deixo de considerar estranho que algu茅m profundamente ateu, e determinado na defesa do racional l贸gico, invista tanto tempo do livro 脿 discuss茫o da filosofia cat贸lica. Sobre este 煤ltimo ponto, tenho de dizer que 茅 algo que sempre me tinha feito alguma confus茫o, o modo como a filosofia estava t茫o carregada de religi茫o, de deuses ou for莽as universais que tudo explicavam. Russell interessantemente n茫o embarca, antes exp玫e o problema como um dos maiores da filosofia: paradoxalmente os pensadores mais racionalistas eram quem mais acreditava numa entidade externa, j谩 que ao definirem o universo como um sistema l贸gico, em que tudo tinha de obedecer a um conjunto de regras perfeitas, matematicamente puras, os tornava ref茅ns de uma entidade superior, a 煤nica capaz de gizar tal molde. Seria apenas com Darwin, e a partir do seu evolucionismo que faria surgir a teoria do Big Bang, que os racionalistas se conseguiriam desprender dessa entidade.
O livro 茅 extenso, mas considero que uma parte demasiada grande foi dedicada 脿 pre-hist贸ria da filosofia e aos seus intervalos, isto porque ao chegar 脿 Filosofia Moderna, final da era medieval, Renascen莽a, Iluminismo e atualidade, teria sido bom dedicar-lhe muito mais espa莽o. S茫o muito, demasiado curtas, as discuss玫es sobre Descartes, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, James e Dewey e ficaram de fora nomes que mereciam ter sido chamados 脿 discuss茫o, nomeadamente homens da ci锚ncia, que como o pr贸prio Russell diz, passou a fazer parte da pr贸pria hist贸ria da filosofia: Galileu, Newton, Einstein. Por outro lado, a Hist贸ria termina em 1945, o que deixa de fora muito do que se germinava nesses anos e viria a ganhar relevo, para al茅m de toda a segunda metade do s茅culo XX. Ainda assim, o trabalho realizado por Russell 茅 imensamente detalhado, mais ainda se tivermos em aten莽茫o que foi feito sem recurso 脿 internet que hoje a tudo d谩 acesso imediatamente, e num tempo de segunda guerra mundial.
Deixo um testemunho do pr贸prio Russell sobre os vieses que lhe apontam no livro, que deixou num apontamento na sua autobiografia:
"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. I did my best, but I am not at all sure that I succeeded.
I was sometimes accused by reviewers of writing not a true history but a biased account of the events that I arbitrarily chose to write of. But to my mind, a man without a bias cannot write interesting history 鈥� if, indeed, such a man exists. I regard it as mere humbug to pretend to lack of bias. Moreoever, a book, like any other work, should be held together by its point of view. This is why a book made up of essays by various authors is apt to be less interesting as an entity than a book by one man. Since I do not admit that a person without bias exists, I think the best that can be done with a large-scale history is to admit one鈥檚 bias and for dissatisfied readers to look for other writers to express an opposite bias. Which bias is nearer to the truth must be left to posterity.鈥� Russell, (1968), "Autobiography", p. 444
Nota: A leitura foi feita entre a edi莽茫o audio em ingl锚s da Audible e a edi莽茫o em livro em portugu锚s da Rel贸gio d'脕gua. Muitas vezes me vi obrigado a parar o audio, para poder mais tarde retomar a leitura no papel e em maior sossego para confrontar e compreender as ideias.
Publicado no VI:
March 12, 2017
袩褍薪懈 薪邪褋谢芯胁 芯胁械 泻褮懈谐械 谐谢邪褋懈 "袠褋褌芯褉懈褬邪 蟹邪锌邪写薪械 褎懈谢芯蟹芯褎懈褬械 懈 褮械薪邪 锌芯胁械蟹邪薪芯褋褌 褋邪 锌芯谢懈褌懈褔泻懈屑 懈 写褉褍褕褌胁械薪懈屑 褍褋谢芯胁懈屑邪 芯写 薪邪褬褉邪薪懈褬械谐 写芯斜邪 写芯 写邪薪邪褋", 褕褌芯 胁械褯 褋邪屑芯 锌芯 褋械斜懈 锌褉懈谢懈褔薪芯 褉邪褋胁褬械褌褭邪胁邪 褕褌邪 褬械 褌芯 袪邪褋械谢 芯胁写械 锌芯泻褍褕邪芯 写邪 褍褉邪写懈. 袦邪谢芯 写械褌邪褭薪懈褬械 屑芯卸械 写邪 褋械 锌褉芯薪邪褣械 褍 锌褉械写谐芯胁芯褉褍:
"校 胁械褯懈薪懈 懈褋褌芯褉懈褬邪 褎懈谢芯蟹芯褎懈褬械, 褋胁邪泻懈 褋械 褎懈谢芯蟹芯褎 锌芯褬邪胁褭褍褬械 泻邪芯 褍 胁邪泻褍褍屑褍; 褮械谐芯胁芯 褋械 屑懈褕褭械褮械 锌褉懈泻邪蟹褍褬械 懈蟹写胁芯褬械薪芯 褋械屑, 褍 薪邪褬斜芯褭械屑 褋谢褍褔邪褬褍, 褍 芯写薪芯褋褍 薪邪 褎懈谢芯蟹芯褎械 锌褉械 褮械谐邪. 袌邪 褋邪屑 褍锌褉邪胁芯 蟹斜芯谐 褌芯谐邪 锌芯泻褍褕邪芯 写邪, 泻芯谢懈泻芯 屑懈 褌芯 懈褋褌懈薪邪 写芯锌褍褕褌邪, 锌褉械写褋褌邪胁懈屑 褋胁邪泻芯谐 褎懈谢芯蟹芯褎邪 泻邪芯 锌芯褋谢械写懈褑褍 褮械谐芯胁芯谐 屑懈褭械邪, 泻邪芯 褔芯胁械泻邪 褍 泻芯屑械 褋褍 褋械 懈褋泻褉懈褋褌邪谢懈褋邪谢械 懈 泻芯薪褑械薪褌褉懈褋邪谢械 屑懈褋谢懈 懈 芯褋械褯邪褮邪 泻芯褬邪 褋褍, 褍 薪械芯写褉械褣械薪芯屑 懈 写懈褎褍蟹薪芯屑 芯斜谢懈泻褍, 斜懈谢邪 褋胁芯褬褋褌胁械薪邪 蟹邪褬械写薪懈褑懈 褔懈褬懈 褬械 写械芯 斜懈芯."
袦械薪懈 褋械 褔懈薪懈 写邪 褬械 袪邪褋械谢 褍 芯胁芯屑 褋胁芯屑 薪邪褍屑褍 褍 锌芯褌锌褍薪芯褋褌懈 褍褋锌懈芯, 懈邪泻芯 褋邪屑 锌芯褌锌褍薪懈 写褍写褍泻 蟹邪 褎懈谢芯蟹芯褎懈褬褍 懈 泻褮懈谐褍 褋邪屑, 薪邪 泻褉邪褬褍 泻褉邪褬械胁邪, 懈 褍蟹械芯 写邪 屑懈 锌芯褋谢褍卸懈 泻邪芯 薪械泻懈 褍胁芯写 懈 写邪 薪械泻械 褋屑褬械褉薪懈褑械 褕褌邪 斜懈 屑芯谐谢芯 写邪 斜褍写械 懈薪褌械褉械褋邪薪褌薪芯 蟹邪 写邪褭械 懈褋褌褉邪卸懈胁邪褮械. 袩褉懈泻邪蟹懈 锌芯褔懈褮褍 褋邪 褋褌邪褉懈屑 袚褉褑懈屑邪, 邪 蟹邪胁褉褕邪胁邪褬褍 袪邪褋械谢芯胁懈屑 褋邪胁褉械屑械薪懈褑懈屑邪. 校泻褉邪褌泻芯 褋褍 锌褉械写褋褌邪胁褭械薪械 懈写械褬械 褋胁邪泻芯谐 芯写 锌芯屑械薪褍褌懈褏 褎懈谢芯蟹芯褎邪 懈 芯薪写邪 褬械 袪邪褋械谢 薪邪 褮懈褏 芯褋褌邪胁懈芯 褋胁芯褬械 泻褉懈褌懈褔泻械 泻芯屑械薪褌邪褉械, 褌邪泻芯 写邪 芯胁芯 薪懈褬械 "薪械褍褌褉邪谢薪邪" 泻褮懈谐邪, 胁械褯 褋锌邪写邪 褍 泻褮懈谐械 "褋邪 褋褌邪胁芯屑", 褕褌芯 屑懈 褋械 褬邪泻芯 褋胁懈褣邪, 薪邪褉芯褔懈褌芯 锌芯褕褌芯 褬械 袪邪褋械谢 蟹邪薪懈屑褭懈胁 懈 写褍褏芯胁懈褌 锌懈褋邪褑. 袧懈褬械写邪薪 褎懈谢芯蟹芯褎 薪懈褬械 锌褉芯褕邪芯 斜械蟹 屑邪褮械谐 懈谢懈 胁械褯械谐 "褉懈斜邪褮邪" (邪泻芯 褋械 写芯斜褉芯 褋褬械褯邪屑, 褔懈薪懈 屑懈 褋械 写邪 褋械 薪邪褬斜芯褭械 锌褉芯胁褍泻邪芯 小锌懈薪芯蟹邪), 邪谢懈 薪懈谐写褬械 褍 泻褮懈蟹懈 薪械 胁懈写懈 褋械 薪懈泻邪泻胁邪 蟹谢芯斜邪 懈谢懈 薪械褕褌芯 褋谢懈褔薪芯 胁械褯 懈褋泻褭褍褔懈胁芯 胁褉谢芯 泻芯褉械泻褌薪芯 懈蟹薪懈褬械褌邪 屑懈褕褭械褮邪 邪褍褌芯褉邪 泻褮懈谐械. 袧邪褉邪胁薪芯, 泻邪写 褋械 褋褌胁邪褉懈 锌褉械写褋褌邪胁褭邪褬褍 薪邪 芯胁邪泻邪胁 薪邪褔懈薪, 褍胁懈褬械泻 锌芯褋褌芯褬懈 褉械邪谢薪邪 屑芯谐褍褯薪芯褋褌 写邪 褋械 薪械褔懈褬懈 邪褉谐褍屑械薪褌懈 褋谢褍褔邪褬薪芯 懈谢懈 薪邪屑褬械褉薪芯 懈蟹胁褉薪褍 懈 锌褉械写褋褌邪胁械 薪邪 锌芯谐褉械褕邪薪 薪邪褔懈薪. 袣邪芯 褕褌芯 褋邪屑 褉械泻邪芯, 薪械屑邪屑 锌芯褬屑邪 褋 褎懈谢芯蟹芯褎懈褬芯屑, 邪谢懈 褋懈谐褍褉邪薪 褋邪屑 写邪 芯胁写械 褌芯 薪懈褬械 褋谢褍褔邪褬. 袧懈 褍 褬械写薪芯屑 屑芯屑械薪褌褍 薪懈褋邪屑 懈屑邪芯 褍褌懈褋邪泻 写邪 褋械 邪褍褌芯褉 薪邪屑械褉邪褔懈芯 写邪 薪械泻芯谐 芯锌褭褍薪械 懈 斜懈芯 褬械 屑邪泻褋懈屑邪谢薪芯 泻芯褉械泻褌邪薪 懈 芯斜褬械泻褌懈胁邪薪 褔邪泻 懈 褍 锌褉械写褋褌邪胁褭邪褮褍 褉邪蟹薪懈褏 褏褉懈褕褯邪薪褋泻懈褏 屑懈褋谢懈谢邪褑邪, 邪 屑懈褋谢懈屑 写邪 褋褍 袪邪褋械谢芯胁懈 褋褌邪胁芯胁懈 芯 褏褉懈褕褯邪薪褋褌胁褍 锌芯蟹薪邪褌懈 (懈谢懈 褬械褋褍 谢懈???). 袩芯褉械写 褌芯谐邪, 薪懈褋邪屑 褬芯褕 褔褍芯 写邪 褋械 薪械泻芯 卸邪谢懈芯 薪邪 袪邪褋械谢邪 蟹斜芯谐 薪械芯斜褬械泻褌懈胁薪芯褋褌懈.
小邪写 褯褍 写邪 褑懈褌懈褉邪屑 薪械泻芯谢懈泻芯 褉械褔械薪懈褑邪 泻芯褬械 褋褍 屑懈 褋械 褬邪泻芯 褋胁懈写褬械谢械 懈 泻芯褬械 褋褍 屑械 屑芯褌懈胁懈褋邪谢械 写邪 褍 斜谢懈卸芯褬 斜褍写褍褯薪芯褋褌懈 写邪屑 褕邪薪褋褍 懈 写褉褍谐懈屑 袪邪褋械谢芯胁懈屑 褋锌懈褋懈屑邪 (懈褋泻褭褍褔褍褬褍褯懈 袩褉懈薪褑懈锌懈邪 袦邪褌褏械屑邪褌懈褑邪, 褬械褉 褌芯 薪械 屑芯卸械 写邪 褋械 褔懈褌邪):
"袟邪 褉邪蟹谢懈泻褍 芯写 褉械谢懈谐懈褬械, 褌械褏薪懈泻邪 褬械 械褌懈褔泻懈 薪械褍褌褉邪谢薪邪: 芯薪邪 褍胁械褉邪胁邪 褭褍写械 写邪 屑芯谐褍 写邪 褔懈薪械 褔褍写邪, 邪谢懈 懈屑 薪械 泻邪卸械 泻邪泻胁邪 褔褍写邪 写邪 褔懈薪械. 校 褌芯屑 锌芯谐谢械写褍, 芯薪邪 褬械 薪械锌芯褌锌褍薪邪. 校 锌褉邪泻褋懈, 褑懈褭械胁懈 泻芯褬懈屑邪 褯械 褋械 锌芯褋胁械褌懈褌懈 薪邪褍褔薪邪 胁械褕褌懈薪邪 褍谐谢邪胁薪芯屑 蟹邪胁懈褋械 芯写 褋谢褍褔邪褬邪. 袎褍写懈 泻芯褬懈 褋褌芯褬械 薪邪 褔械谢褍 胁械谢懈泻懈褏 芯褉谐邪薪懈蟹邪褑懈褬邪, 泻邪泻胁械 芯薪邪 蟹邪褏褌械胁邪, 屑芯谐褍 写邪 褬械, 褍 写邪褌懈屑 谐褉邪薪懈褑邪屑邪, 芯泻褉械薪褍 褍 锌褉邪胁褑褍 泻芯褬懈 懈屑 芯写谐芯胁邪褉邪. 袧邪谐芯薪 锌褉械屑邪 屑芯褯懈 薪邪 褌邪褬 薪邪褔懈薪 懈屑邪 锌褉芯褋褌芯褉 泻邪泻邪胁 薪懈泻邪写邪 褉邪薪懈褬械 薪懈褬械 懈屑邪芯. 肖懈谢芯蟹芯褎懈褬械 泻芯褬械 褋褍 斜懈谢械 薪邪写邪褏薪褍褌械 薪邪褍褔薪芯屑 褌械褏薪懈泻芯屑 褋褍 褎懈谢芯蟹芯褎懈褬械 屑芯褯懈, 懈 芯薪械 褌械卸械 写邪 褋胁械 芯薪芯 褕褌芯 薪懈褬械 褭褍写褋泻芯 褋屑邪褌褉邪褬褍 蟹邪 芯斜懈褔邪薪 褋懈褉芯胁 屑邪褌械褉懈褬邪谢. 袨 褑懈褭械胁懈屑邪 褋械 胁懈褕械 薪械 胁芯写懈 褉邪褔褍薪邪; 褑械薪懈 褋械 褋邪屑芯 胁械褕褌懈薪邪 锌芯褋褌褍锌泻邪. 袨胁芯 褬械 褌邪泻芯褣械 褬械写邪薪 芯斜谢懈泻 谢褍写懈谢邪. 校 写邪薪邪褕褮械 胁褉械屑械, 褌芯 褬械 薪邪褬芯锌邪褋薪懈褬懈 芯斜谢懈泻 谢褍写懈谢邪, 锌褉芯褌懈胁 泻芯谐邪 蟹写褉邪胁邪 褎懈谢芯蟹芯褎懈褬邪 褌褉械斜邪 写邪 薪邪褣械 芯写谐芯胁邪褉邪褬褍褯懈 锌褉芯褌懈胁谢械泻."
袟邪褌懈屑, 锌芯褋褭械写褮械 褉械褔械薪懈褑械 褍 锌芯谐谢邪胁褭褍 芯 啸械谐械谢褍:
"袨胁芯 褬械 斜懈谢邪 谐褉械褕泻邪, 懈 懈蟹 芯胁械 谐褉械褕泻械 薪邪褋褌邪谢邪 褬械 褑械谢邪 懈屑锌芯蟹邪薪褌薪邪 谐褉邪褣械胁懈薪邪 褮械谐芯胁芯谐 褋懈褋褌械屑邪. 孝芯 懈谢褍褋褌褉褍褬械 褬械写薪褍 胁邪卸薪褍 懈褋褌懈薪褍, 薪邪懈屑械 写邪, 褕褌芯 褬械 胁邪褕邪 谢芯谐懈泻邪 谐芯褉邪, 褌芯 褋褍 懈薪褌械褉械褋邪薪褌薪懈褬械 锌芯褋谢械写懈褑械 泻芯褬械 懈蟹 褮械 锌褉芯懈蟹谢邪蟹械." :-)
袩芯褋褭械写褮械 褉械褔械薪懈褑械 芯 袧懈褔械褍 (褋褬邪褬薪芯 锌芯谐谢邪胁褭械, 屑械薪懈 懈薪邪褔械 芯屑懈褭械薪芯 褍 褑懈褬械谢芯褬 泻褮懈蟹懈):
"袧懈褔械 锌褉械蟹懈褉械 褋胁械芯锌褕褌褍 褭褍斜邪胁; 褬邪 褬械 芯褋械褯邪屑 泻邪芯 锌芯泻褉械褌邪褔泻褍 褋懈谢褍 蟹邪 褋胁械 芯薪芯 褕褌芯 卸械谢懈屑 芯胁芯屑 褋胁械褌褍. 袏械谐芯胁懈 褋谢械写斜械薪懈褑懈 写芯褔械泻邪谢懈 褋褍 褋胁芯褬 褔邪褋 胁谢邪褋褌懈, 邪谢懈 褋械 屑芯卸械屑芯 薪邪写邪褌懈 写邪 褯械 褋械 芯薪 斜褉蟹芯 蟹邪胁褉褕懈褌懈." (泻褮懈谐邪 褬械 锌懈褋邪薪邪 褌芯泻芯屑 写褉褍谐芯谐 褋胁褬械褌褋泻芯谐 褉邪褌邪, 锌邪 胁邪屑 褬械 褬邪褋薪芯 薪邪 泻芯褬械 褋褭械写斜械薪懈泻械 屑懈褋谢懈).
袠薪邪褔械, 锌芯褕褌芯 褋胁懈 芯斜芯卸邪胁邪褬褍 袧懈褔械邪, 褋胁邪泻芯 泻芯 泻邪卸械 写邪 谐邪 薪械 胁芯谢懈 (邪 袪邪褋械谢 褬械 褌芯 薪邪锌懈褋邪芯) 懈屑邪 芯写 屑械薪械 邪褍褌芯屑邪褌褋泻懈 锌谢褍褋.
"校 胁械褯懈薪懈 懈褋褌芯褉懈褬邪 褎懈谢芯蟹芯褎懈褬械, 褋胁邪泻懈 褋械 褎懈谢芯蟹芯褎 锌芯褬邪胁褭褍褬械 泻邪芯 褍 胁邪泻褍褍屑褍; 褮械谐芯胁芯 褋械 屑懈褕褭械褮械 锌褉懈泻邪蟹褍褬械 懈蟹写胁芯褬械薪芯 褋械屑, 褍 薪邪褬斜芯褭械屑 褋谢褍褔邪褬褍, 褍 芯写薪芯褋褍 薪邪 褎懈谢芯蟹芯褎械 锌褉械 褮械谐邪. 袌邪 褋邪屑 褍锌褉邪胁芯 蟹斜芯谐 褌芯谐邪 锌芯泻褍褕邪芯 写邪, 泻芯谢懈泻芯 屑懈 褌芯 懈褋褌懈薪邪 写芯锌褍褕褌邪, 锌褉械写褋褌邪胁懈屑 褋胁邪泻芯谐 褎懈谢芯蟹芯褎邪 泻邪芯 锌芯褋谢械写懈褑褍 褮械谐芯胁芯谐 屑懈褭械邪, 泻邪芯 褔芯胁械泻邪 褍 泻芯屑械 褋褍 褋械 懈褋泻褉懈褋褌邪谢懈褋邪谢械 懈 泻芯薪褑械薪褌褉懈褋邪谢械 屑懈褋谢懈 懈 芯褋械褯邪褮邪 泻芯褬邪 褋褍, 褍 薪械芯写褉械褣械薪芯屑 懈 写懈褎褍蟹薪芯屑 芯斜谢懈泻褍, 斜懈谢邪 褋胁芯褬褋褌胁械薪邪 蟹邪褬械写薪懈褑懈 褔懈褬懈 褬械 写械芯 斜懈芯."
袦械薪懈 褋械 褔懈薪懈 写邪 褬械 袪邪褋械谢 褍 芯胁芯屑 褋胁芯屑 薪邪褍屑褍 褍 锌芯褌锌褍薪芯褋褌懈 褍褋锌懈芯, 懈邪泻芯 褋邪屑 锌芯褌锌褍薪懈 写褍写褍泻 蟹邪 褎懈谢芯蟹芯褎懈褬褍 懈 泻褮懈谐褍 褋邪屑, 薪邪 泻褉邪褬褍 泻褉邪褬械胁邪, 懈 褍蟹械芯 写邪 屑懈 锌芯褋谢褍卸懈 泻邪芯 薪械泻懈 褍胁芯写 懈 写邪 薪械泻械 褋屑褬械褉薪懈褑械 褕褌邪 斜懈 屑芯谐谢芯 写邪 斜褍写械 懈薪褌械褉械褋邪薪褌薪芯 蟹邪 写邪褭械 懈褋褌褉邪卸懈胁邪褮械. 袩褉懈泻邪蟹懈 锌芯褔懈褮褍 褋邪 褋褌邪褉懈屑 袚褉褑懈屑邪, 邪 蟹邪胁褉褕邪胁邪褬褍 袪邪褋械谢芯胁懈屑 褋邪胁褉械屑械薪懈褑懈屑邪. 校泻褉邪褌泻芯 褋褍 锌褉械写褋褌邪胁褭械薪械 懈写械褬械 褋胁邪泻芯谐 芯写 锌芯屑械薪褍褌懈褏 褎懈谢芯蟹芯褎邪 懈 芯薪写邪 褬械 袪邪褋械谢 薪邪 褮懈褏 芯褋褌邪胁懈芯 褋胁芯褬械 泻褉懈褌懈褔泻械 泻芯屑械薪褌邪褉械, 褌邪泻芯 写邪 芯胁芯 薪懈褬械 "薪械褍褌褉邪谢薪邪" 泻褮懈谐邪, 胁械褯 褋锌邪写邪 褍 泻褮懈谐械 "褋邪 褋褌邪胁芯屑", 褕褌芯 屑懈 褋械 褬邪泻芯 褋胁懈褣邪, 薪邪褉芯褔懈褌芯 锌芯褕褌芯 褬械 袪邪褋械谢 蟹邪薪懈屑褭懈胁 懈 写褍褏芯胁懈褌 锌懈褋邪褑. 袧懈褬械写邪薪 褎懈谢芯蟹芯褎 薪懈褬械 锌褉芯褕邪芯 斜械蟹 屑邪褮械谐 懈谢懈 胁械褯械谐 "褉懈斜邪褮邪" (邪泻芯 褋械 写芯斜褉芯 褋褬械褯邪屑, 褔懈薪懈 屑懈 褋械 写邪 褋械 薪邪褬斜芯褭械 锌褉芯胁褍泻邪芯 小锌懈薪芯蟹邪), 邪谢懈 薪懈谐写褬械 褍 泻褮懈蟹懈 薪械 胁懈写懈 褋械 薪懈泻邪泻胁邪 蟹谢芯斜邪 懈谢懈 薪械褕褌芯 褋谢懈褔薪芯 胁械褯 懈褋泻褭褍褔懈胁芯 胁褉谢芯 泻芯褉械泻褌薪芯 懈蟹薪懈褬械褌邪 屑懈褕褭械褮邪 邪褍褌芯褉邪 泻褮懈谐械. 袧邪褉邪胁薪芯, 泻邪写 褋械 褋褌胁邪褉懈 锌褉械写褋褌邪胁褭邪褬褍 薪邪 芯胁邪泻邪胁 薪邪褔懈薪, 褍胁懈褬械泻 锌芯褋褌芯褬懈 褉械邪谢薪邪 屑芯谐褍褯薪芯褋褌 写邪 褋械 薪械褔懈褬懈 邪褉谐褍屑械薪褌懈 褋谢褍褔邪褬薪芯 懈谢懈 薪邪屑褬械褉薪芯 懈蟹胁褉薪褍 懈 锌褉械写褋褌邪胁械 薪邪 锌芯谐褉械褕邪薪 薪邪褔懈薪. 袣邪芯 褕褌芯 褋邪屑 褉械泻邪芯, 薪械屑邪屑 锌芯褬屑邪 褋 褎懈谢芯蟹芯褎懈褬芯屑, 邪谢懈 褋懈谐褍褉邪薪 褋邪屑 写邪 芯胁写械 褌芯 薪懈褬械 褋谢褍褔邪褬. 袧懈 褍 褬械写薪芯屑 屑芯屑械薪褌褍 薪懈褋邪屑 懈屑邪芯 褍褌懈褋邪泻 写邪 褋械 邪褍褌芯褉 薪邪屑械褉邪褔懈芯 写邪 薪械泻芯谐 芯锌褭褍薪械 懈 斜懈芯 褬械 屑邪泻褋懈屑邪谢薪芯 泻芯褉械泻褌邪薪 懈 芯斜褬械泻褌懈胁邪薪 褔邪泻 懈 褍 锌褉械写褋褌邪胁褭邪褮褍 褉邪蟹薪懈褏 褏褉懈褕褯邪薪褋泻懈褏 屑懈褋谢懈谢邪褑邪, 邪 屑懈褋谢懈屑 写邪 褋褍 袪邪褋械谢芯胁懈 褋褌邪胁芯胁懈 芯 褏褉懈褕褯邪薪褋褌胁褍 锌芯蟹薪邪褌懈 (懈谢懈 褬械褋褍 谢懈???). 袩芯褉械写 褌芯谐邪, 薪懈褋邪屑 褬芯褕 褔褍芯 写邪 褋械 薪械泻芯 卸邪谢懈芯 薪邪 袪邪褋械谢邪 蟹斜芯谐 薪械芯斜褬械泻褌懈胁薪芯褋褌懈.
小邪写 褯褍 写邪 褑懈褌懈褉邪屑 薪械泻芯谢懈泻芯 褉械褔械薪懈褑邪 泻芯褬械 褋褍 屑懈 褋械 褬邪泻芯 褋胁懈写褬械谢械 懈 泻芯褬械 褋褍 屑械 屑芯褌懈胁懈褋邪谢械 写邪 褍 斜谢懈卸芯褬 斜褍写褍褯薪芯褋褌懈 写邪屑 褕邪薪褋褍 懈 写褉褍谐懈屑 袪邪褋械谢芯胁懈屑 褋锌懈褋懈屑邪 (懈褋泻褭褍褔褍褬褍褯懈 袩褉懈薪褑懈锌懈邪 袦邪褌褏械屑邪褌懈褑邪, 褬械褉 褌芯 薪械 屑芯卸械 写邪 褋械 褔懈褌邪):
"袟邪 褉邪蟹谢懈泻褍 芯写 褉械谢懈谐懈褬械, 褌械褏薪懈泻邪 褬械 械褌懈褔泻懈 薪械褍褌褉邪谢薪邪: 芯薪邪 褍胁械褉邪胁邪 褭褍写械 写邪 屑芯谐褍 写邪 褔懈薪械 褔褍写邪, 邪谢懈 懈屑 薪械 泻邪卸械 泻邪泻胁邪 褔褍写邪 写邪 褔懈薪械. 校 褌芯屑 锌芯谐谢械写褍, 芯薪邪 褬械 薪械锌芯褌锌褍薪邪. 校 锌褉邪泻褋懈, 褑懈褭械胁懈 泻芯褬懈屑邪 褯械 褋械 锌芯褋胁械褌懈褌懈 薪邪褍褔薪邪 胁械褕褌懈薪邪 褍谐谢邪胁薪芯屑 蟹邪胁懈褋械 芯写 褋谢褍褔邪褬邪. 袎褍写懈 泻芯褬懈 褋褌芯褬械 薪邪 褔械谢褍 胁械谢懈泻懈褏 芯褉谐邪薪懈蟹邪褑懈褬邪, 泻邪泻胁械 芯薪邪 蟹邪褏褌械胁邪, 屑芯谐褍 写邪 褬械, 褍 写邪褌懈屑 谐褉邪薪懈褑邪屑邪, 芯泻褉械薪褍 褍 锌褉邪胁褑褍 泻芯褬懈 懈屑 芯写谐芯胁邪褉邪. 袧邪谐芯薪 锌褉械屑邪 屑芯褯懈 薪邪 褌邪褬 薪邪褔懈薪 懈屑邪 锌褉芯褋褌芯褉 泻邪泻邪胁 薪懈泻邪写邪 褉邪薪懈褬械 薪懈褬械 懈屑邪芯. 肖懈谢芯蟹芯褎懈褬械 泻芯褬械 褋褍 斜懈谢械 薪邪写邪褏薪褍褌械 薪邪褍褔薪芯屑 褌械褏薪懈泻芯屑 褋褍 褎懈谢芯蟹芯褎懈褬械 屑芯褯懈, 懈 芯薪械 褌械卸械 写邪 褋胁械 芯薪芯 褕褌芯 薪懈褬械 褭褍写褋泻芯 褋屑邪褌褉邪褬褍 蟹邪 芯斜懈褔邪薪 褋懈褉芯胁 屑邪褌械褉懈褬邪谢. 袨 褑懈褭械胁懈屑邪 褋械 胁懈褕械 薪械 胁芯写懈 褉邪褔褍薪邪; 褑械薪懈 褋械 褋邪屑芯 胁械褕褌懈薪邪 锌芯褋褌褍锌泻邪. 袨胁芯 褬械 褌邪泻芯褣械 褬械写邪薪 芯斜谢懈泻 谢褍写懈谢邪. 校 写邪薪邪褕褮械 胁褉械屑械, 褌芯 褬械 薪邪褬芯锌邪褋薪懈褬懈 芯斜谢懈泻 谢褍写懈谢邪, 锌褉芯褌懈胁 泻芯谐邪 蟹写褉邪胁邪 褎懈谢芯蟹芯褎懈褬邪 褌褉械斜邪 写邪 薪邪褣械 芯写谐芯胁邪褉邪褬褍褯懈 锌褉芯褌懈胁谢械泻."
袟邪褌懈屑, 锌芯褋褭械写褮械 褉械褔械薪懈褑械 褍 锌芯谐谢邪胁褭褍 芯 啸械谐械谢褍:
"袨胁芯 褬械 斜懈谢邪 谐褉械褕泻邪, 懈 懈蟹 芯胁械 谐褉械褕泻械 薪邪褋褌邪谢邪 褬械 褑械谢邪 懈屑锌芯蟹邪薪褌薪邪 谐褉邪褣械胁懈薪邪 褮械谐芯胁芯谐 褋懈褋褌械屑邪. 孝芯 懈谢褍褋褌褉褍褬械 褬械写薪褍 胁邪卸薪褍 懈褋褌懈薪褍, 薪邪懈屑械 写邪, 褕褌芯 褬械 胁邪褕邪 谢芯谐懈泻邪 谐芯褉邪, 褌芯 褋褍 懈薪褌械褉械褋邪薪褌薪懈褬械 锌芯褋谢械写懈褑械 泻芯褬械 懈蟹 褮械 锌褉芯懈蟹谢邪蟹械." :-)
袩芯褋褭械写褮械 褉械褔械薪懈褑械 芯 袧懈褔械褍 (褋褬邪褬薪芯 锌芯谐谢邪胁褭械, 屑械薪懈 懈薪邪褔械 芯屑懈褭械薪芯 褍 褑懈褬械谢芯褬 泻褮懈蟹懈):
"袧懈褔械 锌褉械蟹懈褉械 褋胁械芯锌褕褌褍 褭褍斜邪胁; 褬邪 褬械 芯褋械褯邪屑 泻邪芯 锌芯泻褉械褌邪褔泻褍 褋懈谢褍 蟹邪 褋胁械 芯薪芯 褕褌芯 卸械谢懈屑 芯胁芯屑 褋胁械褌褍. 袏械谐芯胁懈 褋谢械写斜械薪懈褑懈 写芯褔械泻邪谢懈 褋褍 褋胁芯褬 褔邪褋 胁谢邪褋褌懈, 邪谢懈 褋械 屑芯卸械屑芯 薪邪写邪褌懈 写邪 褯械 褋械 芯薪 斜褉蟹芯 蟹邪胁褉褕懈褌懈." (泻褮懈谐邪 褬械 锌懈褋邪薪邪 褌芯泻芯屑 写褉褍谐芯谐 褋胁褬械褌褋泻芯谐 褉邪褌邪, 锌邪 胁邪屑 褬械 褬邪褋薪芯 薪邪 泻芯褬械 褋褭械写斜械薪懈泻械 屑懈褋谢懈).
袠薪邪褔械, 锌芯褕褌芯 褋胁懈 芯斜芯卸邪胁邪褬褍 袧懈褔械邪, 褋胁邪泻芯 泻芯 泻邪卸械 写邪 谐邪 薪械 胁芯谢懈 (邪 袪邪褋械谢 褬械 褌芯 薪邪锌懈褋邪芯) 懈屑邪 芯写 屑械薪械 邪褍褌芯屑邪褌褋泻懈 锌谢褍褋.
August 6, 2017
There are three points I want to make:
1.The author has a very fantastic style of writing. It uses the classic way of writing non-fiction. When you read it, you won't feel you are reading a textbook, because you can know what the author is thinking and that he is sharing his thoughts with you. not just mentioning them when he is talking to himself.
2. The author uses a critical and analytical method of representing the ideas he is going to make. I believe it is a great demonstration of the early analytical philosophy. I love this school of thoughts and I learned more than I could have ever hoped for from this work.
3. This book should not be used by a novice reader of philosophy. If that is the case for you, I strongly suggest that you first read another history of philosophy, and then compliment that by this book. Russell's history of philosophy is more of an "Actually guys... it isn't like that" sort of history. So you should know at least some history of philosophy to know what he is talking about.
1.The author has a very fantastic style of writing. It uses the classic way of writing non-fiction. When you read it, you won't feel you are reading a textbook, because you can know what the author is thinking and that he is sharing his thoughts with you. not just mentioning them when he is talking to himself.
2. The author uses a critical and analytical method of representing the ideas he is going to make. I believe it is a great demonstration of the early analytical philosophy. I love this school of thoughts and I learned more than I could have ever hoped for from this work.
3. This book should not be used by a novice reader of philosophy. If that is the case for you, I strongly suggest that you first read another history of philosophy, and then compliment that by this book. Russell's history of philosophy is more of an "Actually guys... it isn't like that" sort of history. So you should know at least some history of philosophy to know what he is talking about.
July 26, 2018
We are in 1946, Russell is building the chain of ideas that have been pushing civilization to the current state. His erudition is profound but he is biased while selecting thinkers and ideas. And that's what makes this book so good. As a historian, he is using at least three hats as: mathematician, English citizen and philosopher himself. The former is by far the most entertaining and edifying. For example, the mathematician starts boldly picking Pythagoras as the most important thinker ever. Although nuts, Pythagoras wrote the first mathematical proof. "Q.E.D.". And then he goes over the centuries digging up inconsistencies within the thinking frameworks being discussed. This is particularly rewarding if we did our homework and read the books he is discussing. Seems that civilization needs much more of this "curiosity to understand the world" which is all over the place within this book. And Russell shows a consistent path towards progress.
April 25, 2018
I gave this 5 stars because it is incomparably the best single-volume history of philosophy that I鈥檝e read, surpassing even that of Will Durant and Anthony Gottlieb.
It鈥檚 different from other histories of philosophy in three respects. First, it covers more general history than most accounts, which is necessary to really understand the philosophers. Second, Russell doesn鈥檛 just present the views of the various philosophers but provides his interpretations and critiques of their various positions. And third, the depth of analysis is far greater than from other authors.
There are three things I admire about Russell. One, as a writer, he packs a lot of meaning in as few words as possible, so while the book is long, a less skillful writer would have doubled the length. He believed in concise writing without the pretentious language.
Second, Russell thought deeply about the topics he wrote about, and was well-educated in mathematics, history, and philosophy. Even when he disagrees with a philosopher, he can present their views just as well as his own; this is something you鈥檒l find lacking in many modern intellectuals.
Third, despite all his education and brilliance, he remained humble and anti-dogmatic. He went wherever his reasoning led him but was famous for saying he would never die for his beliefs because he could be wrong.
I should admit that I find myself agreeing with many of Russell鈥檚 ideas, and so maybe my review is a bit biased. As another reviewer mentioned, this is more of an analytic philosophers take on history than a fully objective history of philosophy, because Russell is not afraid to voice his opinion. Still, I think this view is slightly exaggerated because Russell does present the philosophy he disagrees with fully and accurately. He doesn鈥檛 set up straw men but he does, I think, successfully refute many of the ideas from Plato, Hegel, Marx, and others.
What I found particularly interesting was that Russell does not have the same reverence for Plato and Aristotle that many authors do. The works of Plato and Aristotle happened to survive, in large part because the mystical elements of each was easy to reconcile with the doctrines of the Catholic Church.
But as you read through the first section on ancient history, you realize Russell may be right: had the writings of Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus survived, we may have had the Renaissance, scientific revolution, and Enlightenment happen sooner. These writings of the early atomists are fully consistent with modern science, and had they not been crushed under the influence of Plato and Aristotle, progress may have been realized sooner.
Russell believes, as I do, that there are two kinds of truth in the world, natural/scientific and psychological, and that the history of philosophy is largely the confusing of linguistic concepts taken to represent actually existing entities. All metaphysical entities, such as God, immortality, spirits, etc. are reconfigurations of actual things that exist into things that exist only within the mind. A quick example: unicorns are composed of horses and horns, each of which exist, but do not exist in the particular configuration I give them in my mind. My language can create configurations, but this does not make these configurations real. Likewise, God is simply the logical extension of goodness, knowledge, and love, taken to the extreme and reconfigured as one entity. But as we just saw, you can鈥檛 reconfigure things that actually exist into something that does simply by thinking about it.
The purpose of philosophy is, therefore, largely the clarification of concepts and the pursuit of rational ethics. If you don鈥檛 agree with this, if you favor continental philosophy, or if you believe that there is some kind of transcendent reality beyond the reach of science and accessible only through subjective experience, then this will not be your favorite book. But I doubt that it wouldn鈥檛 be valuable to you, and other than Russell I don鈥檛 know who could provide a better account of the analytic perspective.
It鈥檚 different from other histories of philosophy in three respects. First, it covers more general history than most accounts, which is necessary to really understand the philosophers. Second, Russell doesn鈥檛 just present the views of the various philosophers but provides his interpretations and critiques of their various positions. And third, the depth of analysis is far greater than from other authors.
There are three things I admire about Russell. One, as a writer, he packs a lot of meaning in as few words as possible, so while the book is long, a less skillful writer would have doubled the length. He believed in concise writing without the pretentious language.
Second, Russell thought deeply about the topics he wrote about, and was well-educated in mathematics, history, and philosophy. Even when he disagrees with a philosopher, he can present their views just as well as his own; this is something you鈥檒l find lacking in many modern intellectuals.
Third, despite all his education and brilliance, he remained humble and anti-dogmatic. He went wherever his reasoning led him but was famous for saying he would never die for his beliefs because he could be wrong.
I should admit that I find myself agreeing with many of Russell鈥檚 ideas, and so maybe my review is a bit biased. As another reviewer mentioned, this is more of an analytic philosophers take on history than a fully objective history of philosophy, because Russell is not afraid to voice his opinion. Still, I think this view is slightly exaggerated because Russell does present the philosophy he disagrees with fully and accurately. He doesn鈥檛 set up straw men but he does, I think, successfully refute many of the ideas from Plato, Hegel, Marx, and others.
What I found particularly interesting was that Russell does not have the same reverence for Plato and Aristotle that many authors do. The works of Plato and Aristotle happened to survive, in large part because the mystical elements of each was easy to reconcile with the doctrines of the Catholic Church.
But as you read through the first section on ancient history, you realize Russell may be right: had the writings of Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus survived, we may have had the Renaissance, scientific revolution, and Enlightenment happen sooner. These writings of the early atomists are fully consistent with modern science, and had they not been crushed under the influence of Plato and Aristotle, progress may have been realized sooner.
Russell believes, as I do, that there are two kinds of truth in the world, natural/scientific and psychological, and that the history of philosophy is largely the confusing of linguistic concepts taken to represent actually existing entities. All metaphysical entities, such as God, immortality, spirits, etc. are reconfigurations of actual things that exist into things that exist only within the mind. A quick example: unicorns are composed of horses and horns, each of which exist, but do not exist in the particular configuration I give them in my mind. My language can create configurations, but this does not make these configurations real. Likewise, God is simply the logical extension of goodness, knowledge, and love, taken to the extreme and reconfigured as one entity. But as we just saw, you can鈥檛 reconfigure things that actually exist into something that does simply by thinking about it.
The purpose of philosophy is, therefore, largely the clarification of concepts and the pursuit of rational ethics. If you don鈥檛 agree with this, if you favor continental philosophy, or if you believe that there is some kind of transcendent reality beyond the reach of science and accessible only through subjective experience, then this will not be your favorite book. But I doubt that it wouldn鈥檛 be valuable to you, and other than Russell I don鈥檛 know who could provide a better account of the analytic perspective.
January 15, 2008
Russell's History of Philosophy is a good little introduction to a massive field. His biases will be a problem for those who are aligned with the ones he critiques. This is because he frequently lets his biases cloud his thinking. For example, he writes,
"So little is known of him [Leucippus] that Epicurus (a later follower of Democritus) was thought to have denied his existence all together, and some moderns have revived this theory. There are, however, a number of allusions to him in Aristotle, and it seems incredible that these (which include textual quotations) would have occurred if he had been merely a myth." -Bertrand Russell, The History of Western Philosophy, 1972, p.64
But has made claims like this elsewhere,
"Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about him, so that I am not concerned with the historical question, which is a very difficult one." -Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not A Christian."
The Gospels were written far closer to the life of Jesus than Aristotle was to the time of Leucippus. I could multiply the above with ease - given that the book is over 800 pages. I just chose the one I did since I am a Christian, and his biases stood out especially in his criticisms of Christianity. Most of his critiques against many of the arguments for God's existence would, if you're familiar with the contemporary scene, be whittled away in a matter of minutes. Another person I could defend, and show some obvious blunders by Russell, is Aristotle. But that would take us too far off scope. I should add that he does give a good presentation of Leibniz, though. Of course, the philosophy of Leibniz was his specialty.
Russell states that he purposes to give more of a history than an analysis of the philosophers he discusses. For the most part this is fair, be Russell does seem to read his own views back into the history he is discussing quite a bit.
Russell also writes very well. Reading the book is smooth, and his work is available to the layman. I should add that there is something good about the bias. As I said above, it's not that he has biases that is bad, it's that they affect his work and take away some credibility. But where it is useful to have his bias is that you can get a glimpse into the mind of atheistic thinking. This allows one, especially a religious defender, to better understand and anticipate atheistic thought - even if said thought is outdated. There鈥檚 nothing new under the sun.
Russell is a realist about universals, and that's a good thing. :-) He also has some arguments and statements to the effect that immaterial entities exist. Thus this book also serves as fodder to pit atheists against themselves. I'm not a raving Russellian, and so I have the book a respectable three stars. There are better, and far more detailed, history of philosophy series out there (e.g., Routledge's).
"So little is known of him [Leucippus] that Epicurus (a later follower of Democritus) was thought to have denied his existence all together, and some moderns have revived this theory. There are, however, a number of allusions to him in Aristotle, and it seems incredible that these (which include textual quotations) would have occurred if he had been merely a myth." -Bertrand Russell, The History of Western Philosophy, 1972, p.64
But has made claims like this elsewhere,
"Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about him, so that I am not concerned with the historical question, which is a very difficult one." -Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not A Christian."
The Gospels were written far closer to the life of Jesus than Aristotle was to the time of Leucippus. I could multiply the above with ease - given that the book is over 800 pages. I just chose the one I did since I am a Christian, and his biases stood out especially in his criticisms of Christianity. Most of his critiques against many of the arguments for God's existence would, if you're familiar with the contemporary scene, be whittled away in a matter of minutes. Another person I could defend, and show some obvious blunders by Russell, is Aristotle. But that would take us too far off scope. I should add that he does give a good presentation of Leibniz, though. Of course, the philosophy of Leibniz was his specialty.
Russell states that he purposes to give more of a history than an analysis of the philosophers he discusses. For the most part this is fair, be Russell does seem to read his own views back into the history he is discussing quite a bit.
Russell also writes very well. Reading the book is smooth, and his work is available to the layman. I should add that there is something good about the bias. As I said above, it's not that he has biases that is bad, it's that they affect his work and take away some credibility. But where it is useful to have his bias is that you can get a glimpse into the mind of atheistic thinking. This allows one, especially a religious defender, to better understand and anticipate atheistic thought - even if said thought is outdated. There鈥檚 nothing new under the sun.
Russell is a realist about universals, and that's a good thing. :-) He also has some arguments and statements to the effect that immaterial entities exist. Thus this book also serves as fodder to pit atheists against themselves. I'm not a raving Russellian, and so I have the book a respectable three stars. There are better, and far more detailed, history of philosophy series out there (e.g., Routledge's).
February 1, 2018
In 1945 Bertrand Russell, a British philosopher and logician, published an amazing and impressive (if not in quality, at least in size) tome: A History of Western Philosophy. The book covers the entire period of the pre-Socratics up to Russell's own time, dealing with all the important philosophers in three volumes, spanning more than 750 pages.
Russell's objective is to explain how the entire history of Western philosophy is one of a recurring battle between "[philosophers] who wished to tighten social bonds and those who wished to relax them" (p. 9). This has been a struggle between people seeking the oppression of society and consequently the flourishing of 'heroes' and/or 'nobility' and people seeking to liberate society and let individual human beings flourish. According to Russell, the history of philosophy is a warzone between dogmatists and libertarians.
Russell doesn't take sides in the conflict, though. It is worth quoting his view at length, since it is the most concise and strongest advocacy of liberalism (philosophical, as well as political) that I know. He admits:
"It is clear that each party to this dispute - as to all that persist through long periods of time - is partly right and partly wrong. Social cohesion is a necessity, and mankind has never yet succeeded in enforcing cohesion by merely rational arguments. 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. In general, important civilizations start with a rigid and superstitious system, gradually relaxed, and leading at a certain stage, to a period of brilliant genius, while the good of the old tradition remains and the evil inherent in its dissolution has not yet developed. But as the evil unfolds, it leads to anarchy, thence, inevitably, to a new tyranny, producing a new synthesis secured by a new system of dogma. The doctrine of liberalism is an attempt to escape from this endless oscillation. The essence of liberalism is an attempt to secure a social order not based on irrational dogma, and insuring stability without involving more restraints than are necessary for the preservation of the community. Whether this attempt can succeed only the future can determine."(pp. 9-10)
The above quotation is - in a nutshell - Russell's book. The book itself is split into three volumes. In Volume 1, Russell deals with Greek philosophy, up to and including the times of the Roman Empire. He explains how with Plato Greek philosophy shifted from a search to comprehend and order Nature (hence the word Cosmos, meaning Order) to turning into one's self to try to contemplate eternal Ideas. With Plato, dogmatism entered philosophy and it hasn't left it ever since. Aristotle, whose philosophy was a reaction to Plato, putting more emphasis on this world (as opposed to Plato's world of perfect Ideas as only Truth), wasn't very helpful as a medicine against dogmatism. First, Aristotle gradually disappeared from the scene, until he was re-discovered in the late Middle Ages. Second, Aristotle built a new dogmatism, putting emphasis on logic, as opposed to (scientific) observation. This explains why science only started to progress when philosophers could throw away Aristotelianism and build their science on new metaphysical systems (starting with Ren茅 Descartes in the early seventeenth century).
In the second volume, Russell describes how Catholic philosophy developed throughout the Middle Ages. The early Church Fathers based their theology on elements of (Neo)Platonism, and is was only with Thomas Aquinas in the twelfth century that the Platonic elements were traded in for Aristotle's philosophy. Aquinas married Christian theology to Aristotle's world system and logic. Hence, all the Medieval disputes about how many Angels would fit on a pinhead.
In general, Catholic philosophy was dogmatism. It claimed to know it all and stifled all diverging opinions. In the Middle ages, learning was in the hands of the Church and the only interest Schoolmen had in disputing each other was to show their intellectual capabilities. At the time, one had to be able to reason both for and against any position, all the way - of course - adhering to Church doctrines. This mentality - which really more suits a lawyer than a seeker of truth - smothers intellectual growth, and it was only in the Renaissance - when Stoic and Platonic texts entered Europe again (via Arabic translations) - that new insights started to develop. Albeit only in free City States (such as in Italy and Holland).
The modern period in philosophy starts with Descartes, who was the first philosopher to erect a whole new system of metaphysics and who paved the way for a new way of thinking. The trouble with Descartes was that he was a radical subjectivist. Cogito ergo sum; I think therefore I am. The only clear and distinct knowledge is that I exist as a thinking thing; all the rest of certain knowledge is based on the existence of a perfect, hence good God - who, of course, wouldn't deceive us.
The English tradition of empiricism, as opposed to the Cartesian, rationalistic tradition, started with John Locke, who tried to build a system of objective true knowledge on his analysis of how we human beings perceive the world and form impressions and ideas. This empirical tradition was updated by David Hume, who made empiricism consistent, and consequently fell into radical skepticism. True knowledge, besides algebra and geometry, doesn't exist, according to this line of thought. All supposed knowledge is based on induction and causation; causation being nothing more than association and induction being nothing more than making universal (i.e. infinite) claims based on finite datasets. Hence, true knowledge doesn't exist.
Immanuel Kant tried to dissolve the impasse by dividing the world up in the phenomenal world - the world that we perceive with our sensual apparatus - and the real world - the world as it is in itself and which is unaccessible to us. According to Kant, Descartes was right in claiming that we can know truth about the world we perceive; yet Hume was right in claiming that we cannot know anything true about the real world. Our mental faculties continuously order the input from our senses and by doing this, these faculties constitute the world. Yet, it is not the real world. The real, un-knowable world contains God, immortality and free will. How convenient.
After Kant, the problem of dogmatism and liberalism again arose. 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. In other words, I am the World. In Hegel, the World was considered to be the Whole, or the Absolute. Every part of the world is - by definition - incomplete without its relation to the world as a Whole. It is not hard to see how these philosophical tendencies, combined with Rousseau's notions of the 'general will' and 'the Sovereign state', would lead to the ideology of Nationalism and hence to totalitarianism.
Rousseau is important in another way, though. Up to Rousseau, all (or most) philosophers tried to build systems based on rationality. Rousseau saw Reason as a corrupting force and consequently started to idealize natural man. The savage Indian was more human than his fellow corrupted Frenchmen. This was the starting sign for romanticism, in which sensibility and emotionality were glorified. Science, technology and economics corrupt human morality, in setting humans up to fight eachother for possession of property. In nature, at least according to Rousseau, human beings were peaceful and frivolous: as long as our bellies are full and our sexual appetites are whetted, nothing bad happened. Russell sees Rousseau as the turning point in modern philosophy: after Rousseau Reason was discredited and this led to the proliferation of absurd and dangerous ideologies, disguised as philosophy. In this, Rousseau is the predecessor of Nietzsche, who raised the notion of 'Will to Power' to unsurpassed heights. To see Russell dismantle Nietzsche as a pathetic, neurotic failure who dreamt of being a military genius but in reality was a sickly and empty person is a real pleasure. Nietzsche is the best example of Russell's thesis that philosophers put forward philosophies that they cannot themselves live up. Considering Nietzsche's influence on later ideologies like Nazism, it is important to realize Russell's point. Nietzsche created an imaginary Ubermensch as wishful thinking; Hitler tried to copy the idea and killed millions of peoples. (The same thing can be said about Rousseau, Hegel and Marx regarding Stalin and Mao).
Russell's medicine to the above described battle between dogmatism and libertarianism; between tradition and novelty; between subjectivism and objectivism; between rationalism and empiricism; between mathematics and science (which are all cases of the same recurring theme in different disguises); is his own philosophy of logic/mathematics. With logical analysis we can do away with many (most?) of the millenia old problems in philosophy: they are just cases of bad syntax. The problems that are left should be studied scientifically, meaning we should seek for the truth, using observations and inferences. When we enter the lab, we should leave our preconceived notions at the door. The problem with which much of the history of philosophy is littered, is that philosophers seek to find truth in accordance with their own favourite principles - usually ethical precepts.
Russell's position is much more humble than all these bigheaded philosophers who pretended to be the first one to really have found the truth, only to introduce their own favourite (ethical) positions. He tries to discover truth one piece at a time, using logical analysis and tries to divest his search of any temporal and temperamental bias. Whatever one thinks of this claim (made on the last page, p. 744) I leave for the reader of this review to decide. Since 1945, the year of publication of this book, there has been much progress in philosophy and science and there have been major turning points in the history of ideas; so if Russell has the last word on these issues is to be doubted. Nevertheless, I think if one wants to seriously dismantle Russell's philosophy and his history of ideas, one has to be really clever and versed in science, logic and mathematics - the man certainly was no fraud or amateur. His view also has a much more humane feel than many later philosophies (existentialism, post-structuralism, just to name a few) and philosophers (Sartre and Derrida, to mention the most corrupt ones).
Of course, my above description of Russell's book is much too limited and superficial. The book contains 76 chapters on about as much philosophers. And even more important, Russell connects all these philosophers and their ideas to the cultures and times in which these people lived. What Russell does in The History of Western Philosophy, is to describe the history of ideas in connection with their spatiotemporal context. For Russell, ideas don't exist in a vacuum, and the philosophers who expressed these ideas were as much influenced by their times as vice versa. Because of this, the scope and depth of this book is immense. Hence, it is practically impossible to review this book and do justice to it at the same time.
I can only add that this is definitely one of the most impressive books I have ever read. The only reason why I haven't given it the full 5 stars is the fact that the book is written for a general public, yet someone who doesn't know the ins and outs of the philosophers and their philosophies will have trouble to understand Russell's points throughout the book. Russell is extremely whitty and, at times, cynical. This is lovely, as long as one gets the gist.
Russell's objective is to explain how the entire history of Western philosophy is one of a recurring battle between "[philosophers] who wished to tighten social bonds and those who wished to relax them" (p. 9). This has been a struggle between people seeking the oppression of society and consequently the flourishing of 'heroes' and/or 'nobility' and people seeking to liberate society and let individual human beings flourish. According to Russell, the history of philosophy is a warzone between dogmatists and libertarians.
Russell doesn't take sides in the conflict, though. It is worth quoting his view at length, since it is the most concise and strongest advocacy of liberalism (philosophical, as well as political) that I know. He admits:
"It is clear that each party to this dispute - as to all that persist through long periods of time - is partly right and partly wrong. Social cohesion is a necessity, and mankind has never yet succeeded in enforcing cohesion by merely rational arguments. 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. In general, important civilizations start with a rigid and superstitious system, gradually relaxed, and leading at a certain stage, to a period of brilliant genius, while the good of the old tradition remains and the evil inherent in its dissolution has not yet developed. But as the evil unfolds, it leads to anarchy, thence, inevitably, to a new tyranny, producing a new synthesis secured by a new system of dogma. The doctrine of liberalism is an attempt to escape from this endless oscillation. The essence of liberalism is an attempt to secure a social order not based on irrational dogma, and insuring stability without involving more restraints than are necessary for the preservation of the community. Whether this attempt can succeed only the future can determine."(pp. 9-10)
The above quotation is - in a nutshell - Russell's book. The book itself is split into three volumes. In Volume 1, Russell deals with Greek philosophy, up to and including the times of the Roman Empire. He explains how with Plato Greek philosophy shifted from a search to comprehend and order Nature (hence the word Cosmos, meaning Order) to turning into one's self to try to contemplate eternal Ideas. With Plato, dogmatism entered philosophy and it hasn't left it ever since. Aristotle, whose philosophy was a reaction to Plato, putting more emphasis on this world (as opposed to Plato's world of perfect Ideas as only Truth), wasn't very helpful as a medicine against dogmatism. First, Aristotle gradually disappeared from the scene, until he was re-discovered in the late Middle Ages. Second, Aristotle built a new dogmatism, putting emphasis on logic, as opposed to (scientific) observation. This explains why science only started to progress when philosophers could throw away Aristotelianism and build their science on new metaphysical systems (starting with Ren茅 Descartes in the early seventeenth century).
In the second volume, Russell describes how Catholic philosophy developed throughout the Middle Ages. The early Church Fathers based their theology on elements of (Neo)Platonism, and is was only with Thomas Aquinas in the twelfth century that the Platonic elements were traded in for Aristotle's philosophy. Aquinas married Christian theology to Aristotle's world system and logic. Hence, all the Medieval disputes about how many Angels would fit on a pinhead.
In general, Catholic philosophy was dogmatism. It claimed to know it all and stifled all diverging opinions. In the Middle ages, learning was in the hands of the Church and the only interest Schoolmen had in disputing each other was to show their intellectual capabilities. At the time, one had to be able to reason both for and against any position, all the way - of course - adhering to Church doctrines. This mentality - which really more suits a lawyer than a seeker of truth - smothers intellectual growth, and it was only in the Renaissance - when Stoic and Platonic texts entered Europe again (via Arabic translations) - that new insights started to develop. Albeit only in free City States (such as in Italy and Holland).
The modern period in philosophy starts with Descartes, who was the first philosopher to erect a whole new system of metaphysics and who paved the way for a new way of thinking. The trouble with Descartes was that he was a radical subjectivist. Cogito ergo sum; I think therefore I am. The only clear and distinct knowledge is that I exist as a thinking thing; all the rest of certain knowledge is based on the existence of a perfect, hence good God - who, of course, wouldn't deceive us.
The English tradition of empiricism, as opposed to the Cartesian, rationalistic tradition, started with John Locke, who tried to build a system of objective true knowledge on his analysis of how we human beings perceive the world and form impressions and ideas. This empirical tradition was updated by David Hume, who made empiricism consistent, and consequently fell into radical skepticism. True knowledge, besides algebra and geometry, doesn't exist, according to this line of thought. All supposed knowledge is based on induction and causation; causation being nothing more than association and induction being nothing more than making universal (i.e. infinite) claims based on finite datasets. Hence, true knowledge doesn't exist.
Immanuel Kant tried to dissolve the impasse by dividing the world up in the phenomenal world - the world that we perceive with our sensual apparatus - and the real world - the world as it is in itself and which is unaccessible to us. According to Kant, Descartes was right in claiming that we can know truth about the world we perceive; yet Hume was right in claiming that we cannot know anything true about the real world. Our mental faculties continuously order the input from our senses and by doing this, these faculties constitute the world. Yet, it is not the real world. The real, un-knowable world contains God, immortality and free will. How convenient.
After Kant, the problem of dogmatism and liberalism again arose. 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. In other words, I am the World. In Hegel, the World was considered to be the Whole, or the Absolute. Every part of the world is - by definition - incomplete without its relation to the world as a Whole. It is not hard to see how these philosophical tendencies, combined with Rousseau's notions of the 'general will' and 'the Sovereign state', would lead to the ideology of Nationalism and hence to totalitarianism.
Rousseau is important in another way, though. Up to Rousseau, all (or most) philosophers tried to build systems based on rationality. Rousseau saw Reason as a corrupting force and consequently started to idealize natural man. The savage Indian was more human than his fellow corrupted Frenchmen. This was the starting sign for romanticism, in which sensibility and emotionality were glorified. Science, technology and economics corrupt human morality, in setting humans up to fight eachother for possession of property. In nature, at least according to Rousseau, human beings were peaceful and frivolous: as long as our bellies are full and our sexual appetites are whetted, nothing bad happened. Russell sees Rousseau as the turning point in modern philosophy: after Rousseau Reason was discredited and this led to the proliferation of absurd and dangerous ideologies, disguised as philosophy. In this, Rousseau is the predecessor of Nietzsche, who raised the notion of 'Will to Power' to unsurpassed heights. To see Russell dismantle Nietzsche as a pathetic, neurotic failure who dreamt of being a military genius but in reality was a sickly and empty person is a real pleasure. Nietzsche is the best example of Russell's thesis that philosophers put forward philosophies that they cannot themselves live up. Considering Nietzsche's influence on later ideologies like Nazism, it is important to realize Russell's point. Nietzsche created an imaginary Ubermensch as wishful thinking; Hitler tried to copy the idea and killed millions of peoples. (The same thing can be said about Rousseau, Hegel and Marx regarding Stalin and Mao).
Russell's medicine to the above described battle between dogmatism and libertarianism; between tradition and novelty; between subjectivism and objectivism; between rationalism and empiricism; between mathematics and science (which are all cases of the same recurring theme in different disguises); is his own philosophy of logic/mathematics. With logical analysis we can do away with many (most?) of the millenia old problems in philosophy: they are just cases of bad syntax. The problems that are left should be studied scientifically, meaning we should seek for the truth, using observations and inferences. When we enter the lab, we should leave our preconceived notions at the door. The problem with which much of the history of philosophy is littered, is that philosophers seek to find truth in accordance with their own favourite principles - usually ethical precepts.
Russell's position is much more humble than all these bigheaded philosophers who pretended to be the first one to really have found the truth, only to introduce their own favourite (ethical) positions. He tries to discover truth one piece at a time, using logical analysis and tries to divest his search of any temporal and temperamental bias. Whatever one thinks of this claim (made on the last page, p. 744) I leave for the reader of this review to decide. Since 1945, the year of publication of this book, there has been much progress in philosophy and science and there have been major turning points in the history of ideas; so if Russell has the last word on these issues is to be doubted. Nevertheless, I think if one wants to seriously dismantle Russell's philosophy and his history of ideas, one has to be really clever and versed in science, logic and mathematics - the man certainly was no fraud or amateur. His view also has a much more humane feel than many later philosophies (existentialism, post-structuralism, just to name a few) and philosophers (Sartre and Derrida, to mention the most corrupt ones).
Of course, my above description of Russell's book is much too limited and superficial. The book contains 76 chapters on about as much philosophers. And even more important, Russell connects all these philosophers and their ideas to the cultures and times in which these people lived. What Russell does in The History of Western Philosophy, is to describe the history of ideas in connection with their spatiotemporal context. For Russell, ideas don't exist in a vacuum, and the philosophers who expressed these ideas were as much influenced by their times as vice versa. Because of this, the scope and depth of this book is immense. Hence, it is practically impossible to review this book and do justice to it at the same time.
I can only add that this is definitely one of the most impressive books I have ever read. The only reason why I haven't given it the full 5 stars is the fact that the book is written for a general public, yet someone who doesn't know the ins and outs of the philosophers and their philosophies will have trouble to understand Russell's points throughout the book. Russell is extremely whitty and, at times, cynical. This is lovely, as long as one gets the gist.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,522 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.