A History of Western Philosophy: Difference between revisions
Reverted good faith edits by 178.128.6.136; See discussion of title in talk. (TW) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
Russell himself had something to say about the book: |
Russell himself had something to say about the book: |
||
"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 bias cannot write interesting history — if, indeed, such a man exists."<ref name="autobio"/> |
"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 bias cannot write interesting history — if, indeed, such a man exists."<ref name="autobio"/> |
||
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. |
|||
==References== |
==References== |
||
Revision as of 15:18, 29 June 2010
A History of Western Philosophy[1] (1945) by the philosopher Bertrand Russell is a conspectus of Western philosophy from the pre-Socratic philosophers to the early 20th century. Although criticised for its over-generalization and its omissions, particularly from the post-Cartesian period, it was 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, the book was cited as one of those that won him the award. The book provided Russell with financial security for the last part of his life.
Background
The book was written during the Second World War, having its origins in a series of lectures on the history of philosophy that Russell gave at the Barnes Foundation in Philadelphia during 1941 and 1942.[2] Much of the historical research was done by Russell's third wife Patricia. In 1943, Russell received an advance of $3000 from the publishers, and between 1943 and 1944 he wrote the book while living at Bryn Mawr College. The book was published in 1945 in the USA and a year later in the UK.
Content
The work is divided into three books, each of which is subdivided into chapters; each chapter generally deals with a single philosopher, school of philosophy, or period of time.
Ancient Philosophy
- The Pre-Socratics (including Thales, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Empedocles, Anaxagoras and Protagoras)
- Socrates, Plato and Aristotle
- Ancient Philosophy after Aristotle (including the Cynics, Sceptics, Epicureans, Stoics and Plotinus)
Catholic Philosophy
- The Fathers (including developments in Jewish philosophy, Islamic philosophy (which he calls Mohammedan throughout, after the fashion of his time), St Ambrose, St Jerome, St Augustine, St Benedict and Pope Gregory the Great)
- The Schoolmen (including John the Scot and St Thomas Aquinas)
Modern Philosophy
- From the Renaissance to Hume (including Machiavelli, Erasmus, More, Bacon, Hobbes, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley and Hume)
- From Rousseau to the Present Day (including Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Byron, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, the Utilitarians, Marx, Bergson, William James and John Dewey)
- The last chapter in this section, The Philosophy of Logical Analysis, is concerned with Russell's own philosophical views at the time.
Reaction and aftermath
The reception of the book was mixed, especially from academic reviewers. Russell was somewhat dismayed at the reaction[3].Whilst often praised for Russell's humorous and accessible style of writing[citation needed], the text has also been regarded unfavorably for its concentration on pre-Cartesian philosophy[4] as well as over-generalization and omissions.[4] A notable example is his glaring omission of Søren Kierkegaard which is later corrected in his 1959 history of philosophy book Wisdom of the West[5].
Russell himself described the text as a work of social history, asking that it be treated in such a manner.[6]
Reviews
"A precious book ... a work that is in the highest degree pedagogical which stands above the conflicts of parties and opinions." - Albert Einstein[6]
"Parts of this famous book are sketchy ... in other respects it is a marvelously readable, magnificently sweeping survey of Western thought, distinctive for placing it informatively into its historical context. Russell enjoyed writing it, and the enjoyment shows; his later remarks about it equally show that he was conscious of its shortcomings." - A. C. Grayling[7]
"Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy is amusing, but suffers from defects ... First, it deals largely with ancient philosophy, and is curt and selective in its treatment of the post-Cartesian tradition. Secondly, it is dismissive towards all those philosophers with whom Russell felt no personal affinity. Thirdly, it shows no understanding of Kant and post-Kantian idealism. It is, for all that, a classic of wit, elegance and resolute idiosyncrasy." - Roger Scruton[4]
"Mr. Russell's qualities as a writer and thinker ... are of a high order: deftness of wit, vigor of mind and suppleness of style. Yet their presence ... do not save the book ... from being perhaps the worst that Mr. Russell has written.... As one would expect, the author is at his best when dealing with present day ideas, if for no other reason than his large share in their inception.... By contrast, his treatment of ancient and medieval doctrines is nearly worthless." - Leo Roberts[8]
"A History of Western Philosophy errs consistently in this respect. Its author never seems to be able to make up his mind whether he is writing history or polemic.... [Its method] confers on philosophers who are dead and gone a kind of false contemporaneity which may make them seem important to the uninitiate. But nevertheless it is a misreading of history." - George Boas[9]
"History of Western Philosophy, a vulgar, but representative book." - George Steiner[10]
"He did it to make money, he wrote it fast. Bertrand Russell was a great philosopher but a terrible historian." - Edward Pols, Professor of Philosophy and William J. Kenan Professor of the Humanities, Bowdoin College
Russell himself had something to say about the book: "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 bias cannot write interesting history — if, indeed, such a man exists."[6]
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.[11] 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.
References
- Ray Monk, Bertrand Russell. The Ghost of Madness, London 2000
Notes
- ^ Full title A History of Western Philosophy And Its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day
- ^ Russell, B: "A History of Western Philosophy", page xi. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1972
- ^ Monk p. 296
- ^ a b c Scruton, R: "Short History of Modern Philosophy ", Routledge, 2001
- ^ Russell, B. Wisdom of the West, 1959.
- ^ a b c Russell, B: "The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell", Routledge, 2000
- ^ Grayling, A. C.: "Russell: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions)", Oxford University Press, 2002
- ^ Roberts, L: "Review of History of Western Philosophy", Isis, 38(1948): 268-270
- ^ Boas, G: "Review of History of Western Philosophy", Journal of the History of Ideas, 8(1947): 117-123
- ^ Steiner, G: "Martin Heidegger", University Of Chicago Press, 1991
- ^ "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."