This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
there is a problem: was the book unprecise in the post-Cartesian period or in the pre-Cartesian? Information is contradictory
To do:
-- ajn ( talk) 09:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Bryan Magee is very disparaging of this book in his "Confessions of a Philosopher". But he really liked Russell and agreed with his views on Wittgenstein I and II. Magee is very much a Kantian and it is in this respect that he mainly finds fault with Russell, and especially this book. As Magee is a significant populariser of philosophy, as well as a providing the standard work on Schopenhauer, his views should be noted. He suggets this work was a rushed work aimed at the adult education market and dilutes heavy, but important, aspects of philosophy. Magee suggests other works by Russell are far superior to this. User:mal4mac
The opinions of Wittgensteinians on Russell are completely predictable, and therefore add no information, however pungently expressed. Septentrionalis 02:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Durant had chapters on Croce, Spencer, and Santayana; none on Byron, although he quotes him several times, and has much the same interest in relations between philosophy and culture as Russell. Otherwise the same set of moderns. Finding the omission of Kierkegaard, Heidegger and Husserl odd feels to me like temporal provincialism. (Heidegger was younger than Russell, Husserl the same age as Dewey; so we could leave the passage out, and it would follow from what has already been said.) Septentrionalis 03:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
The subtitle has certainly disappeared from the Simon and Schuster paperback; I'm not sure whether the distinction is early/late or English/American. In any case, the subtitle belongs in the article, as a guide to Russell's intentions. Septentrionalis 16:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I think Russell's environment, however, was Hegelian rather than Kantian; a philosopher who believed in Kant and not in Hegel would be regarded as desperately old-fashioned. See Wm James: The Bloc Universe for the American version. Septentrionalis 01:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Wittgenstein & Russell bitter rivals?? Who wrote this crap? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.240.128.75 ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I read this article because I was curious about Russell's History; a number of historical articles ( History of science; Pre-experimental science) citing it seemed really out of line. Seeing the criticism section, I noticed there were no reviews by historians so went looking for some. I was surprised that the two I checked were both so strongly negative. I added passages from both but if they seem redundant, drop one (but at least one should stay). -- SteveMcCluskey 03:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC); revised 13:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it's time to move on a little bit more. The article has included blurby negative quotes, but I believe we should head straight to the specifics. His capacity for uninformed bias is remarkable, and the section on Aristotle's logic is so biased and dumb I can't belive it's Russell's. There is so much steaming bullshit in this book, that given its popularity it has been a genocidal weapon on the interested laymen.
201.19.139.187 23:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that "...is a statement that is very interesting." violates the npov policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anih ( talk • contribs) 02:47, 30 March 2007
I don't think those quotes add to the encyclopedic nature of the article. I propose deletion. Brrk.3001 22:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The result of the move request was page moved. CIreland ( talk) 10:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
History of Western Philosophy (Russell) →
A History of Western Philosophy — Move to actual title of book per
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name). Proposed name already redirects here anyway. --
Station1 (
talk) 08:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
A recent added the following passage to the article:
I have moved that edit to the talk page, per WP:BRD, since it does not so much present a discussion of Russell's work as make a proposal of what the article should focus on. Let's "compare Russell's bias, action, and works with those of his critics" here before restoring this one-sided passage. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 14:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The Wiki article on this book is a hit job on the book and maybe Russell - it does not illuminate much about the book but to knock it down and assure that it is skipped over as a textbook for college or high school curricula. The venom in the article needs to be countered and responded to. Wiki should not become a place for hit jobs and book censorship. Forkhume ( talk) 21:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I was searching by "The History of Western Philosophy", by W. T. Jones, and was directed to "A History of Western Philosophy", by Bertrand Russell. There's no article about that series of books? Amazon page on "The History of Western Philosophy", by W. T. Jones.
-- CesarAKG ( talk) 15:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
-- I hope someone qualified for the task will indeed write a page on Jones's A History of Western Philosophy. It is infinitely better than Russell's misnamed compilation of holiday lectures. Henrik Thiil Nielsen ( talk) 08:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
there is a problem: was the book unprecise in the post-Cartesian period or in the pre-Cartesian? Information is contradictory
To do:
-- ajn ( talk) 09:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Bryan Magee is very disparaging of this book in his "Confessions of a Philosopher". But he really liked Russell and agreed with his views on Wittgenstein I and II. Magee is very much a Kantian and it is in this respect that he mainly finds fault with Russell, and especially this book. As Magee is a significant populariser of philosophy, as well as a providing the standard work on Schopenhauer, his views should be noted. He suggets this work was a rushed work aimed at the adult education market and dilutes heavy, but important, aspects of philosophy. Magee suggests other works by Russell are far superior to this. User:mal4mac
The opinions of Wittgensteinians on Russell are completely predictable, and therefore add no information, however pungently expressed. Septentrionalis 02:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Durant had chapters on Croce, Spencer, and Santayana; none on Byron, although he quotes him several times, and has much the same interest in relations between philosophy and culture as Russell. Otherwise the same set of moderns. Finding the omission of Kierkegaard, Heidegger and Husserl odd feels to me like temporal provincialism. (Heidegger was younger than Russell, Husserl the same age as Dewey; so we could leave the passage out, and it would follow from what has already been said.) Septentrionalis 03:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
The subtitle has certainly disappeared from the Simon and Schuster paperback; I'm not sure whether the distinction is early/late or English/American. In any case, the subtitle belongs in the article, as a guide to Russell's intentions. Septentrionalis 16:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I think Russell's environment, however, was Hegelian rather than Kantian; a philosopher who believed in Kant and not in Hegel would be regarded as desperately old-fashioned. See Wm James: The Bloc Universe for the American version. Septentrionalis 01:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Wittgenstein & Russell bitter rivals?? Who wrote this crap? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.240.128.75 ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I read this article because I was curious about Russell's History; a number of historical articles ( History of science; Pre-experimental science) citing it seemed really out of line. Seeing the criticism section, I noticed there were no reviews by historians so went looking for some. I was surprised that the two I checked were both so strongly negative. I added passages from both but if they seem redundant, drop one (but at least one should stay). -- SteveMcCluskey 03:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC); revised 13:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it's time to move on a little bit more. The article has included blurby negative quotes, but I believe we should head straight to the specifics. His capacity for uninformed bias is remarkable, and the section on Aristotle's logic is so biased and dumb I can't belive it's Russell's. There is so much steaming bullshit in this book, that given its popularity it has been a genocidal weapon on the interested laymen.
201.19.139.187 23:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that "...is a statement that is very interesting." violates the npov policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anih ( talk • contribs) 02:47, 30 March 2007
I don't think those quotes add to the encyclopedic nature of the article. I propose deletion. Brrk.3001 22:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The result of the move request was page moved. CIreland ( talk) 10:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
History of Western Philosophy (Russell) →
A History of Western Philosophy — Move to actual title of book per
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name). Proposed name already redirects here anyway. --
Station1 (
talk) 08:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
A recent added the following passage to the article:
I have moved that edit to the talk page, per WP:BRD, since it does not so much present a discussion of Russell's work as make a proposal of what the article should focus on. Let's "compare Russell's bias, action, and works with those of his critics" here before restoring this one-sided passage. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 14:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The Wiki article on this book is a hit job on the book and maybe Russell - it does not illuminate much about the book but to knock it down and assure that it is skipped over as a textbook for college or high school curricula. The venom in the article needs to be countered and responded to. Wiki should not become a place for hit jobs and book censorship. Forkhume ( talk) 21:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I was searching by "The History of Western Philosophy", by W. T. Jones, and was directed to "A History of Western Philosophy", by Bertrand Russell. There's no article about that series of books? Amazon page on "The History of Western Philosophy", by W. T. Jones.
-- CesarAKG ( talk) 15:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
-- I hope someone qualified for the task will indeed write a page on Jones's A History of Western Philosophy. It is infinitely better than Russell's misnamed compilation of holiday lectures. Henrik Thiil Nielsen ( talk) 08:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)