Russell's good on the philosophers he likes, crap on the one's he doesn't as he basically doesn't understand them/take the time to understand them. Coppleston is indeed the best but a hell of a lot to read as an introduction. If he reads the Phaedo he'll know if philosophy is for him, and can take it from there.George Hannah said:With respect, "a" not "the" classic. Russell is a rattling good read but sketchy, unreliable and polemical. Copleston's History of Philosophy in eleven volumes is the standard work of reference and generally agreed to be the most fair and complete summary available.Prestwich_Blue said:If you want some basic introductions then Nigel Warburton and Simon Blackburn have both written good basic overviews. The classic summary work is Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy.malg said:now I have time on my hands I fancy reading a bit of philosophy. Can anyone recommend a good starting point? I've heard the the 'Dummies' one is shite. Therefore, recommendations?
Bert Trautmann's Parachute said:Russell's good on the philosophers he likes, crap on the one's he doesn't as he basically doesn't understand them/take the time to understand them. Coppleston is indeed the best but a hell of a lot to read as an introduction. If he reads the Phaedo he'll know if philosophy is for him, and can take it from there.George Hannah said:With respect, "a" not "the" classic. Russell is a rattling good read but sketchy, unreliable and polemical. Copleston's History of Philosophy in eleven volumes is the standard work of reference and generally agreed to be the most fair and complete summary available.Prestwich_Blue said:If you want some basic introductions then Nigel Warburton and Simon Blackburn have both written good basic overviews. The classic summary work is Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy.
Russell was so clever he didn't know he had halitosis. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/943a_russell_lhl.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91 ... l_lhl.html</a>Manc in London said:Bert Trautmann's Parachute said:Russell's good on the philosophers he likes, crap on the one's he doesn't as he basically doesn't understand them/take the time to understand them. Coppleston is indeed the best but a hell of a lot to read as an introduction. If he reads the Phaedo he'll know if philosophy is for him, and can take it from there.George Hannah said:With respect, "a" not "the" classic. Russell is a rattling good read but sketchy, unreliable and polemical. Copleston's History of Philosophy in eleven volumes is the standard work of reference and generally agreed to be the most fair and complete summary available.
Are you serious? You are saying Betrand Russell doesn't understand other philosophers work? Unbelievable. Russell was a fiercely intelligent man.
He could be dismissive but that is because he was able to cut through the bullshit just as he did with Copleston when debating the existence of God.
Prestwich_Blue said:If you want some basic introductions then Nigel Warburton and Simon Blackburn have both written good basic overviews. The classic summary work is Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy.malg said:now I have time on my hands I fancy reading a bit of philosophy. Can anyone recommend a good starting point? I've heard the the 'Dummies' one is shite. Therefore, recommendations?
dannybcity said:Prestwich_Blue said:If you want some basic introductions then Nigel Warburton and Simon Blackburn have both written good basic overviews. The classic summary work is Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy.malg said:now I have time on my hands I fancy reading a bit of philosophy. Can anyone recommend a good starting point? I've heard the the 'Dummies' one is shite. Therefore, recommendations?
I've got Russell's book and periodically I try to tackle it, I've never got very far.