Talk:A History of Western Philosophy

Older comments

there is a problem: was the book unprecise in the post-Cartesian period or in the pre-Cartesian? Information is contradictory To do:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

201.19.139.187 23:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that "...is a statement that is very interesting." violates the npov policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anih (talk • contribs) 02:47, 30 March 2007

Quotes

I don't think those quotes add to the encyclopedic nature of the article. I propose deletion. Brrk.3001 22:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. CIreland (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

---

History of Western Philosophy (Russell) → A History of Western Philosophy — Move to actual title of book per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name). Proposed name already redirects here anyway. --Station1 (talk) 08:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems the presence or absence of the leading "A" depends on which edition you have. The current Routledge, which I have, has History of Western Philosophy both on the cover and within whereas the Simon & Schuster has A History of Western Philosophy. CIreland (talk) 08:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right; I hadn't realized that. A Google books search does show both versions used, and even one with "The History..." on the cover. I still lean towards a change because "A History..." seems to be the title used on the earliest 1945/6 editions[1][2][3], seems to be more common when searching (admittedly difficult to tell accurately), and avoids the parenthetical qualifier in the title. Station1 (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think History of Western Philosophy will always have to be a redirect to Western Philosophy with a hat note at that article. Therefore, the most sensible place to put this article is at the other commonly used title, A History of Western Philosophy per the original RM. If you agree I will move it immediately. CIreland (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I do agree. Usually these WP:RM requests are left for several days, but if you're an admin, I leave it up to you. Station1 (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No sense waiting on process for uncontroversial stuff. CIreland (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion of Biases

A recent edit added the following passage to the article:

"A comparison of the biases of Bertrand Russell, to the biases of his critics could have great explanatory value. Russell was definitely biased toward evidence-based thinking free from fear, hope, and prejudice. This bias he clearly states.<ref> "Understanding History", Russell, B. Philosophical Library, NY, 1957 : "if you have an opinion about any matter, it should be based on ascertained facts, not upon hope, or fear, or prejudice." </ref> Russell's actions demonstrated an intellectual courage rarely seen. His effort to make explicit and share the good ideas of human history is a treasure in our human legacy. His inquiry free from reverence and distain is continually demonstrated in his works. Compare Russell's bias, action, and works with those of his critics."

I have moved that edit to the talk page, per WP:BRD, since it does not so much present a discussion of Russell's work as make a proposal of what the article should focus on. Let's "compare Russell's bias, action, and works with those of his critics" here before restoring this one-sided passage. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wiki article on this book is a hit job on the book and maybe Russell - it does not illuminate much about the book but to knock it down and assure that it is skipped over as a textbook for college or high school curricula. The venom in the article needs to be countered and responded to. Wiki should not become a place for hit jobs and book censorship. Forkhume (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:CIVIL. If you have any kind of reasonable criticism of the article, please express it calmly and politely. Per WP:NPOV, it is appropriate to mention critical reviews of and opinions about Russell's book; this of course has nothing to do with censorship. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

What about "The History of Western Philosophy", by W. T. Jones?

I was searching by "The History of Western Philosophy", by W. T. Jones, and was directed to "A History of Western Philosophy", by Bertrand Russell. There's no article about that series of books? Amazon page on "The History of Western Philosophy", by W. T. Jones.

--CesarAKG (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

-- I hope someone qualified for the task will indeed write a page on Jones's A History of Western Philosophy. It is infinitely better than Russell's misnamed compilation of holiday lectures. Henrik Thiil Nielsen (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)