[ 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: 96 KB, 500x739, bertrand-russell-history.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5759175 No.5759175 [Reply] [Original]

When people are interested in philosophy but have no clue where to start, I tell them to read this. I say skip all the useless philosophers that introduced at the beginning. My recommended order:
Pythagoras
Socrates
Chronological from here

Bertrand Russell gives a solid background on each philosopher and where they stood in their philosophical beliefs. Yes, Bertrand usually does give an opinion on the philosopher at the end of each philosopher's chapter but you don't have to agree with his view.

This book is really the best way to potentially find out who your favorite philosophers are and where you should go from there. There isn't a better intro to philosophy book out there.

>> No.5759184

I wouldn't skip Parmenides. He's a good starting point to pseudo-paradoxes.

>> No.5759196

>>5759175

Bertrand Russell please go.

Anthony Kenny's History is far superior.

>> No.5759197

>>5759054
Ive heard it said that everything socrates argues has been proven wrong
I havent read any of his works so i cant speak on it
I have also heard that socrates never wrote anything, all we know from him is from plato
Again idk but to me it seems he's not that important of a philosopher. He is on my "to read" list but not that high up on it

>> No.5759209

>>5759197
Start with this book. The most commonly known thing is philosophy is that Socrates didn't write. Are you new to this board? I don't think he too harsh on Socrates but take his final statements on philosophers with an open mind. I don't think Socrates was wrong about everything and I'm pretty sure he did use the word proven.

>> No.5759212

His treatment of Hegel and Nietzsche is a product of his indebtedness to a particular branch of philosophy. I would say take this introduction up if your interested in a particular way in which to do philosophy, e.g. logical positivism; which mind you, isn't a bad thing, just I think Russell isn't that charitable to these aforementioned thinkers.

>> No.5759215

>>5759209
didn't*
Bertrand was pretentious but not to that level.

>> No.5759217

Russell's shit.
His book is shit.
You're shit.
This thread is shit.

Kill yourself.

>> No.5759221

>>5759212
I recall him saying many positive things about Nietzsche. I haven't read this book in a while though because I'm beyond intro philosophy.

>> No.5759225

>>5759209
Not really new
I used to visit alot about a year ago but i realized it was nothing bjt pretensions liberals and commies shit posting so i only browse when i am looking for book recommendations

>> No.5759228

>>5759217
I'm OP and I agree Russell wasn't a great philosopher. In my opinion, this book was his greatest contribution to philosophy. I can't hate that he was an active humanitarian though.

>> No.5759230

>>5759225
I understand.
See below.

>>5759217

>> No.5759287

Tell them to read Durant instead

>> No.5761435

>>5759228
>Russell wasn't a great philosopher
> author of "On Denoting" which is considered a "paradigm of philosophy"

>> No.5761452

You always know a book is great when the inarticulate fools of /lit/ hate it.