[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.45 MB, 1625x2541, history_of_western_philosophy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18723484 No.18723484 [Reply] [Original]

I just finished pic related to get a quick overview of the history of western philosophy (obviously), but it was published in 1945, all that came afterwards and even a lot of Russell's popular contemporaries are not discussed at all. Where can I continue to learn about the history of philosophy, up to today? Is there a single book on modern philosophers?

>> No.18723575

nice job reading the most crap history of philosophy

>> No.18723576

>>18723484

There is volume four of Kenney's A New History of Western Philosophy, which is basically a four volume attempt to do what Russel attempted, a single author history of philosophy. Kenney's is generally better reviewed than Russel's. I personally found it much better organized, and it might serve better as a desk reference.

That said, it is still a wide survey and volume four, although it can be purchased alone, covers Schopenhauer on, and very recent philosophy a short shrift.


I am unaware of a good summary for very recent philosophy. The author of a book faces two problems. First an explosion of scholarship but also the subdividing of the field into highly specialized sub-fields that no longer talk to each other. You also have new philosophy adjacent fields popping up to answer questions relevant to older philosophy. For example, Kenney includes C.S. Pierce in volume four, but really he is one of the father's of semiotics, not a philosopher.

Most of the more practical, and thus partly more interesting work done in philosophy today centers around the Hard Problem of Conciousness or quantum mechanics. Work on both requires introduction to a number of other subjects, making them more difficult to include in a survey.

>> No.18723579

>>18723575
fpbp
>>18723484
>>>/reddit/

>> No.18723617

>>18723484
The best history of philosophy is widely agreed to be Copleston's however it is giant

>> No.18723619

>>18723575
>>18723579
What do you consider a better alternative?

>> No.18723658

>>18723619
Start with the Greeks

>> No.18723751

Such a great book made even better by the fact that it makes Hegel trannies seethe because Russell has his own opinions.

>> No.18723762

>>18723619
see >>18723576 and >>18723658

>> No.18723773

>>18723619
Routledge's history of philosophy series

>> No.18723842

>>18723619

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/57342

this seems to be the primary source they all use for greek philosophers outside of aristotle and plato

>> No.18723881

>>18723842
Graham's is better

>> No.18723885

>>18723484
Why the FUCK did you think Russel is a good way to start on philosophy? Russel is biased and most of the time does a strawman of ideas he doesn't agree with (e.g. Aquinas). It might be a meme, but do start with the Greeks. You cannot comprehend Deleuze, Baudrillard, etc. without this bedrock. As for a book which talks about contemporary philosophy, I can't help you.

>> No.18723915

>>18723885
What a shock, the Aquinas larpers are offended by Russell

>> No.18723997

>>18723915
>larpers
Take your meds

>> No.18724016

>>18723997
There is no such thing as an Aquinas reader who isn't larping

>> No.18724028

>>18723997
Do you simply use this to counter any arguments? Or why would you think the previous poster needs medicine? Is everyone who you think is wrong automatically schizophrenic now?

>> No.18724081

>>18724016
Why?

t. guy reading Aquinas.

>> No.18724130

Modern philosophy isn't a field anymore.

It's logic, as increasingly divorced from what was previously considered philosophy, philosophy of mind that now requires studying neuroscience and information science to understand, semiotics and linguistics, or the interpretation of physics.

Of these, most philosophers who aren't just reteaching old philosophy working in neuroscience or physics.

>> No.18724139

>>18723484
Bro I really want to know this too

>> No.18724144

>>18724130
Oh, and half the neuroscience philosophy is autists trying to convince everyone that we're all bug men and that subjective experience doesn't actually exist because it seems impossible to ever explain how material causes experience. On the flip side, you have mathematicians and physicists positing pan-pyschism and an observer or conciousness particle or fundemental force because they can't explain their shit without conciousness either.

Just wait for a paradigm shift, it's all nonesense right now. We've hit a wall.

>> No.18724168

>>18723915
t. Byron larper

>> No.18724170
File: 305 KB, 1080x1461, 1620738178423.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18724170

>>18723484
why are anglos like this

>> No.18724181

>>18723484
>quick
more like quack history of western philosophy

>> No.18724194

>>18724028
Thinking everyone is pretending to be something they're not despite having no evidence of it is a sign of paranoia

>> No.18724230

>>18724170
I don't really see anything wrong there

>> No.18724275

>>18723575
>>18723579
>>18723885
>>18724181
What exactly do you not like about it?

>> No.18724279

>>18724275
And did you even read it or do you just parrot?

>> No.18724492

>>18724275
the fact that russell is retarded. take it or leave it faggot no one cares what you end up reading

>> No.18725144

>>18724492
>no one cares what you end up reading
I'm not even OP but you clearly didn't even have the brain cells to read and understand the OP, why should I believe that you are smarter than Russell, a generally respected philosopher?

>> No.18725180

>>18725144
his historiography is extremely fucking shoddy you dumbass, read literally any modern review and you'd know this. start from the greeks and come back to russell and you'd know what the other anons are talking about.

>> No.18725198

>>18724275
He omits discussion of major works by major philosophers for no apparent reason (Aquinas' Summa Theologica, Hegel's PoS, etc) and he's strongly biased against all strains of idealism because he thought it led to the nazism that existed at the time he was writing

>> No.18725331

>>18725180
>>18725198
Okay, thank you for explaining.
>read literally any modern review and you'd know this
Well the goodreads reviews are very positive, despite acknowledging that his explanations are biased. But sure, it's just goodreads.

>> No.18725745
File: 15 KB, 295x445, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18725745

What's /lit/'s opinion on Anthony Kenny's A New History Of Western Philosophy? Is it better than Russell's one?

>> No.18725773

>>18725745
Yes. It's the premier survey.

>> No.18725843

>>18723619
Copleston

>> No.18726305

>>18725745
The Oxford Companion To Philosophy is better

>> No.18726341

Nothing after 1945 matters. Especially in philosophy.