[History Western Philosophy Pdf Free Download
Virginie Fayad
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 1944 and 1945 he wrote the book while living at Bryn Mawr College. The book was published in 1946 in the United Kingdom and a year later in the US. It was re-set as a 'new edition' in 1961, but no new material was added. Corrections and minor revisions were made to printings of the British first edition and for 1961's new edition; no corrections seem to have been transferred to the American edition (even Spinoza's birth year remains wrong).
In 1947 in the Journal of the History of Ideas, the philosopher George Boas wrote that, "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."[6] In 1948 in Isis, Leo Roberts wrote that while Russell was a deft and witty writer, A History of Western Philosophy was perhaps the worst of Russell's books. In his view, Russell was at his best when dealing with contemporary philosophy, and that in contrast "his treatment of ancient and medieval doctrines is nearly worthless."[7] Notwithstanding this, A History of Western Philosophy was praised by physicists Albert Einstein and Erwin Schrdinger.[5][8]
The critic George Steiner, writing in Heidegger (1991), described A History of Western Philosophy as "vulgar", noting that Russell omits any mention of Martin Heidegger.[10] In Jon Stewart's anthology The Hegel Myths and Legends (1996), Russell's work is listed as a book that has propagated "myths" about Hegel.[11] Stephen Houlgate writes that Russell's claim that Hegel's doctrine of the state justifies any form of tyranny is ignorant.[12] The philosopher Roger Scruton, writing in A Short History of Modern Philosophy (2001), described A History of Western Philosophy as elegantly written and witty, but faulted it for Russell's concentration on pre-Cartesian philosophy, lack of understanding of Immanuel Kant, and over-generalization and omissions.[13]
The British philosopher A.C. Grayling wrote in 2002 that "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."[14] In 2004, Grayling elaborated and summarized the work:
Because of the partisan nature of its views, and the quick, witty style of their presentation, it has never been a staple as an academic textbook. Instead it has belonged to the amateurs of philosophy, in the sense of both those who love the pursuit and those who read it in their own time for their own instruction. Written late in life by one of the great contributors to philosophy and logic, who was also a man of deep and abiding liberal principles, it is a unique book. Highly readable, very amusing, full of instruction, even when it needs the correctives of closer scholarship, it is one of the monuments of twentieth-century philosophy and literature....[15]
I finished reading A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell a while ago. Not being an expert by any stretch I thought it was very good (informative, accessible, enjoyable etc..). But I have read in a number of different places that it isn't actually accurate. Most recently Anthony Kenny noted that it wasn't overburdened by accuracy (but it was a great introduction just to enthuse students) and Peter Adamson in his History of Philosophy podcast noted the same in a brief aside. The reviews section in wikipedia points to the same.
So the question is - is there sections of it (chapters) that are particular inaccurate so should be read with a pinch or salt. Or is it a more general mood to the work (e.g. is it Whiggish - for instance his own area pf interest logical analysis is at the end - does this represent his interpretation of the end of philopsophy). Is it possible give a high level summary of corrections to the work or is that too big a task?
Russell's history is a classic, but it's dated. Especially don't take anything he says about medieval philosophy that seriously. He was not only personally unsympathetic to the figures, the state of scholarly research on medieval philosophy at the time was atrocious. If you want a somewhat better history of the medieval period, I recommend the book by Armand Maurer (2nd ed 1982).
I was pleased to be writing this history because I had always believed that history should be written in the large. I had always held, for example, that the subject matter of which Gibbon treats could not be adequately treated in a shorter book or several books. 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.
It's what an introductory survey & history ought to be. I read it pretty quickly the summer between 8th & 9th grade when I wanted a map of where to go next. It's flawed in a way it ought to be. It's compellingly written, and of course has bias & errors; as any work of a single person, time & place is.If there's a better starter book, I don't know it. If you continue in philosophy or the history of ideas, his bias will become apparent, if not, the errors are trivial.
The notion of essence is an intimate part of every philosophy subsequent to Aristotle, until we come to modern times. It is, in my opinion, a hopelessly muddle-headed notion, but its historical importance requires us to say something about it. (200).
Still, one cannot hope to remember in one pass everything Russell attempts to convey. The book is almost too much for an initial introduction to philosophy as well. Its place in philosophical studies therefore lies at two points: that at which one has a grasp on a general outline of what philosophy is, and wants to then find out what, why, and how philosphy is; and that at which one has read respective original materials of philosophers and wishes to remember and better understand how that work fits into the project which is Western Philosophy.
This book can be read alone, and also works well in conjunction with The Great Philosophers, which itself derives much of its background and attitude from Russell's work. It can be read early or late in one's study's of philosophy. What seems beyond dispute, however, is that it should be read; until another Russell comes along to update it, this work remains the best tying together of the strands of ideas that constitute modern Western thought.
There is little of the true philosophic spirit in Aquinas. He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading. I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times. (463).
The Neoplatonists, the Arabs, and the Schoolmen took a passionate interest in the metaphysics of Plato and Aristotle, but none at all in their political writings, because the political systems of the age of City States had completely disappeared. The growth of City States in Italy synchronized with the revival of learning, and made it possible for humanists to profit by the political theories of republican Greeks and Romans. The love of "liberty," and the theory of checks and balances, came to the Renaissance from antiquity, and to modern times largely from the Renaissance, though also directly from antiquity. This aspect of Machiarelli is at least as important as the more famous "immoral" doctrines of The Prince. (509).
The modern world, so far as mental outlook is concerned, begins in the seventeenth century. No Italian of1 the Renaissance would have been unintelligible to Plato or Aristotle; Luther would have horrified Thomas Aquinas, but would not have been difficult for him to understand. With the seventeenth century it is different: Plato and Aristotle, Aquinas and Occam, could not have made head or tail of Newton. (525).
The merits of Hobbes appear most clearly when he is contrasted with earlier political theorists. He is completely free from superstition; he does not argue from what happened to Adam and Eve at the time of the Fall. He is clear and logical; his ethics, right or wrong, is completely intelligible, and does not involve the use of any dubious concepts. Apart from Machiavelli, who is much more limited, he is the first really modern writer on political theory. Where he is wrong, he is wrong from over-simplification, not because the basis of his thought is unreal and fantastic. (556).
The God of the Old Testament is a God of power, the God of the New Testament is also a God of love; but the God of the theologians, from Aristotle to Calvin, is one whose appeal is intellectual: His existence solves certain puzzles which otherwise would create argumentative difficulties in the understanding of the universe. This Deity who appears at the end of a piece of reasoning, like the proof of a proposition in geometry, did not satisfy Rousseau, who reverted to a conception of God more akin to that of the Gospels. In the main, modern theologians, especially such as are Protestant, have followed Rousseau in this respect. The philosophers have been more conservative; in Hegel, Lotze, and Bradley arguments of the metaphysical sort persist, in spite of the fact that Kant professed to have demolished such arguments once for all. (585).
795a8134c1