/lit/ - Literature

>>16434568
But Copleston takes 5 thousand pages to do it. That's far too detailed for me; I know nothing of the subject.

>>16434723
I'm fine with authors like that, as long as they also present the actual views of the philosophers in question before adding their opinions. Would you say Russell does this?

>>16434747
Yes, all my real knowledge of philosophy comes from Gottlieb's first book, which basically covers only the Greeks and the Hellenistic period. Medieval philosophy is touched on very lightly, as is the Renaissance. The second of Gottlieb's books, which I am about to read, only covers eight Enlightenment philosophers and that's all. After that, I'll still have plenty to learn about modern philosophy. Russell seems like a natural place to go to.

>>16434836
But isn't Russell a standard text in most intro to philosophy undergraduate courses?

>>15535051
never not funny

he dabbed on you long before you typed out this mess

>>14917531
Something alluding to Russel's paradox that Russel misunderstood

>>14885280