What do you think?
Rate this book
A History of Western Philosophy #1-3
A History of Western Philosophy
Since its first publication in 1945 Lord Russell's A History of Western Philosophy has been universally acclaimed as the outstanding one-volume work on the subject—unparalleled in its comprehensiveness, its clarity, its erudition, its grace and wit. In seventy-six chapters he traces philosophy from the rise of Greek civilization to the emergence of logical analysis in the twentieth century. Among the philosophers considered are: Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, the Atomists, Protagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Cynics, the Sceptics, the Epicureans, the Stoics, Plotinus, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Benedict, Gregory the Great, John the Scot, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, William of Occam, Machiavelli, Erasmus, More, Bacon, Hobbes, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, the Utilitarians, Marx, Bergson, James, Dewey, and lastly the philosophers with whom Lord Russell himself is most closely associated -- Cantor, Frege, and Whitehead, co-author with Russell of the monumental Principia Mathematica.
906 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1945
About the author
Bertrand Russell
919 books6,749 followersBertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS, was a Welsh philosopher, historian, logician, mathematician, advocate for social reform, pacifist, and prominent rationalist. Although he was usually regarded as English, as he spent the majority of his life in England, he was born in Wales, where he also died.
He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought."
He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,443 reviews
January 12, 2012
There's a throwaway remark in this book which has haunted me ever since I read it some time in the mid-70s. Russell is talking about Socrates, and he wonders if Socrates actually existed. Maybe Plato made him up.
"I don't think many people would have been able to make up Socrates," muses Russell. "But Plato could have done it."
It's hard not to continue this line of reasoning. If Socrates turns out to be fictional, who else is? And which fictional characters of today will later be accepted as historical persons? The more you think about it, the more you start feeling that the world really is a Philip K. Dick novel.
"I don't think many people would have been able to make up Socrates," muses Russell. "But Plato could have done it."
It's hard not to continue this line of reasoning. If Socrates turns out to be fictional, who else is? And which fictional characters of today will later be accepted as historical persons? The more you think about it, the more you start feeling that the world really is a Philip K. Dick novel.
April 15, 2015
A Critical (& Patronizing) Survey of Western Philosophy
Russell is consistently opinionated throughout his presentation and it might confuse some of the readers that he is so casual in writing off some of the major philosophers and their key ideas. This is because the book is not a mere history of philosophy, a mere account of ideas, by any stretch. Instead it is a critical survey, a long catalogue of what Russell agrees and disagrees with among all the major doctrines. The format followed is: a brief historical sketch to give context to a doctrine, an even briefer explanation, and then a long critical take that will put forward Russell’s opinions, usually about why it is misguided in the light of modern scientific approach. And more often than not, he is wary of those ideas which, from the point of view of his war-torn present, seemed 'dangerous.'
In fact, I think that three strands of vexation can be discerned:
1. Leading to orthodoxy in religion
2. Leading to rigidity in logic
3. Leading to Totalitarian fantasies
Any idea which Russell felt was tending towards these were roundly attacked and put in place. Must have felt like a humanitarian act, writing this book! After all, the long stretch of time that allowed Russell to undertake the tome was granted him by a stay in prison — his crime was distributing pacifist literature during the First World War. Hitler caused him to later renounce his pacifism, to the point that he wished he were younger so that he might don a uniform himself.
If you were to attempt a history of philosophy, you can write a history without imposing on the reader what your own opinions are. Or you can write a history just to let the reader know exactly what you (as a thinker of some standing yourself, you might add!) think of each philosopher. Or you can write a history and try to justify why you prefer some, even one, more than the others.
Russell has opted to for a mix of the last two options — and he prefers himself over all others, that’s all!
As the book progresses it becomes more and more clear that it is a summary of Russell’s views, and not of the philosophers being discussed. This means that most of them gets short shrift. And as we approach modern times it is amusing to see how Russell is almost impatient for the history to quickly reach and culminate in his own position of Logical Positivism, which he clearly thinks is the best approach to philosophy and in the light of which he judges everyone else. This allows him to narrate the entire historical progress in a patronizing and all-knowing tone that might be jarring to a reader who is not willing to take the same attitude towards Russell’s own naivete!
You have to out-patronize the patronizing author to enjoy this fully. That is the trick. And if you do, there is no end of fun to be had form this eminently readable epic.
January 19, 2024
I stole this off my father's shelves many years ago. The indications on the inside cover was that he read it in Finland in 1959 - I think he once missed a train there and the next one wasn't for a week.
It's true that this is in many respects a heavy, dry, and testing read. On the other hand it's full of interesting anecdotes about the philosophers themselves, from the earliest of ancient Greeks to Russell's contemporaries in the 20th century. And Russell, a mathematician of the highest order as well as a starred philosopher is a clear and concise writer, careful to present each person's work in the context of its time, and showing how to some extent such philosophy shaped and refined the period it came from. Moreover the author's wit shows through on most pages and he has a definite way with words.
Just as we have authors today writing to make the most esoteric physics accessible to the layman through intelligent precis and analogy, Russell appears to have been a populist of his time. This is very definitely an introduction, a guide, a setting of the development of philosophy through a string of individuals and schools, rather than a thorough examination of any particular one of them. It is likely one of the most accessible of serious works on philosophy, but given the era that produced it (1940s) and the elevation of its author, it will place demands on the reader.
It ends (if I remember correctly) with a summary of his own work in Principia Mathematica and a fascinating account of how Godel undermined Russell's masterwork twenty years later.
Very well worth reading.
Join my Patreon
Join my 3-emails-a-year newsletter #prizes
..
It's true that this is in many respects a heavy, dry, and testing read. On the other hand it's full of interesting anecdotes about the philosophers themselves, from the earliest of ancient Greeks to Russell's contemporaries in the 20th century. And Russell, a mathematician of the highest order as well as a starred philosopher is a clear and concise writer, careful to present each person's work in the context of its time, and showing how to some extent such philosophy shaped and refined the period it came from. Moreover the author's wit shows through on most pages and he has a definite way with words.
Just as we have authors today writing to make the most esoteric physics accessible to the layman through intelligent precis and analogy, Russell appears to have been a populist of his time. This is very definitely an introduction, a guide, a setting of the development of philosophy through a string of individuals and schools, rather than a thorough examination of any particular one of them. It is likely one of the most accessible of serious works on philosophy, but given the era that produced it (1940s) and the elevation of its author, it will place demands on the reader.
It ends (if I remember correctly) with a summary of his own work in Principia Mathematica and a fascinating account of how Godel undermined Russell's masterwork twenty years later.
Very well worth reading.
Join my Patreon
Join my 3-emails-a-year newsletter #prizes
..
October 31, 2021
A History of Western Philosophy And Its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, Bertrand Russell
A History of Western Philosophy is a 1945 book by philosopher Bertrand Russell. A survey of Western philosophy from the pre-Socratic philosophers to the early 20th century, it was criticised for Russell's over-generalization and omissions, particularly from the post-Cartesian period, but nevertheless became a popular and commercial success, and has remained in print from its first publication.
When Russell was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1950, A History of Western Philosophy was cited as one of the books that won him the award. Its success provided Russell with financial security for the last part of his life.
Content: Ancient Philosophy; Catholic Philosophy; and Modern Philosophy.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز چهارم ماه آوریل سال1978میلادی
عنوان: تاریخ فلسفه غرب و روابط آن با اوضاع سیاسی و اجتماعی از قدیم تا امروز؛ نویسنده: برتراند راسل؛ مترجم: نجف دریابندری؛ تهران، سخن، سال1340؛ در سه جلد: جلد نخست: فلسفه قدیم؛ جلد دوم: فلسفه قرون وسطی؛ جلد سوم: فلسفه جدید؛ چاپ دیگر: تبریز، بهمن، سال1345؛ چاپ دیگر: تهران، بیست و پنج شهریور، سال1348؛ چاپ دیگر: تهران، پرواز؛ سال1351؛ در دو جلد، سال1365؛ چاپ ششم سال1373؛ موضوع تاریخ فلسفه ی غرب از نویسندگان بریتانیا - سده 20م
شرح نقادانه ی «تاریخ فلسفه» در غرب، از هزاره ی نخست پیش از میلاد مسیح، تا اواسط سده ی بیستم میلادی؛ جناب «نجف دریابندری» در پیشگفتار خود بر کتاب مینویسند: (احساس خوانشگر تاریخ «راسل»، همانند احساس جوان کنجکاویست، که همراه پدر ستیهنده، و زبان آور خود، به دیدار بزرگان تاریخ تفکر میرود، و به گفتگوی پرحرارت پدر، با آنها گوش میدهد؛ و بسیار چیزها - چه از باب معلومات فلسفی، و چه از باب شیوه های جدل - میآموزد.)؛ «تاریخ فلسفه ی غرب»، بازنویسی سلسله درسهایی است، که «راسل» از سال1940میلادی، تا سال1943میلادی، در «آمریکا» داده بودند، کتاب در تابستان سال1944میلادی و در «انگلستان»، برای انتشار آماده شد
کتاب از سه فصل تشکیل شده است: «فلسفه قدیم»؛ «فلسفه قرون وسطی»؛ «فلسفه عصر جدید»؛ نویسنده کوشیده است تا در هر فصل به اوضاع فکری فلاسفه و پیشرفت علم فلسفه در میان جوامع و تکامل آن، بپردازد، و تاریخ فلسفه را با روشی نقادانه، مورد تحلیل و نقد قرار دهد
در بخش نخست، تاریخ پیدایش فلسفه از دوران پیش از «سقراط» و پیش از رشد وهمه گیری فلسفه در «یونان» آغاز شده، تا «سقراط»، «افلاطون» و «ارسطو» ادامه مییابد (که مهمترین بخش این کتاب در فصل نخست نیز همین مبحث است) و سرانجام بحث با فلاسفه پس از «ارسطو» به پایان میرسد
بخش دوم؛ به فلسفه در دوران سیطره ی کلیسا پرداخته اند، دوران کلیسا و عصر گسترش مسیحیت در اروپا، همان دورانی است که ما به لحاظ تاریخی با عنوان «قرون وسطی (سده های میانی)» میشناسیم؛ در آن دوران با وجود خفقان سیاسی و مذهبی در غرب، اما انگشت شمار فیلسوفانی، پای به عرصه ی همین گیتی نهادند؛ اما نکته جالب توجه در باره ی «سده های میانی» آن است، که در آن دوران، هرچند غرب در انحطاط فکری قرار داشت، ولی شرق در اوج بود؛ دانشمندان ایرانی و اسلامی، و فلاسفه بزرگ ایرانی، نظیر «سهروردی» و «ابنسینا» در آن زمان در مشرق زمین حاضر بودند؛ در واقع اگر ایران و جهان مشرق، در آن دوران به پیشرفت ادامه نمیداد، همگی دستاوردهای علمی و فلسفی دنیای کهن از بین میرفت؛ شرق در این دوران پلی برای انتقال «فلسفه یونان باستان» به دنیای غرب قلمداد میشود
بخش سوم و پایانی کتاب، به بررسی فیلسوفان جدید، در دوران پس از رنسانس در غرب، پرداخته اند؛ در این بخش، فلاسفه ی بزرگوار، از «اسپینوزا» تا «دکارت»، و از «روسو» و «هگل»، تا «شوپنهاور» و «نیچه»؛ و…؛ مورد نقد قرار گرفته، و نظر همگی آن بزرگواران، مورد گزارش ایشان قرار و آرام گرفته و در کتاب آرمیده اند؛ تا باز هم این دیار نیز از خواب خوش بیدار شود؛ تا «سهرودی و پورسینا»های دیگری باز هم برویند
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 25/09/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 08/08/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
A History of Western Philosophy is a 1945 book by philosopher Bertrand Russell. A survey of Western philosophy from the pre-Socratic philosophers to the early 20th century, it was criticised for Russell's over-generalization and omissions, particularly from the post-Cartesian period, but nevertheless became a popular and commercial success, and has remained in print from its first publication.
When Russell was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1950, A History of Western Philosophy was cited as one of the books that won him the award. Its success provided Russell with financial security for the last part of his life.
Content: Ancient Philosophy; Catholic Philosophy; and Modern Philosophy.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز چهارم ماه آوریل سال1978میلادی
عنوان: تاریخ فلسفه غرب و روابط آن با اوضاع سیاسی و اجتماعی از قدیم تا امروز؛ نویسنده: برتراند راسل؛ مترجم: نجف دریابندری؛ تهران، سخن، سال1340؛ در سه جلد: جلد نخست: فلسفه قدیم؛ جلد دوم: فلسفه قرون وسطی؛ جلد سوم: فلسفه جدید؛ چاپ دیگر: تبریز، بهمن، سال1345؛ چاپ دیگر: تهران، بیست و پنج شهریور، سال1348؛ چاپ دیگر: تهران، پرواز؛ سال1351؛ در دو جلد، سال1365؛ چاپ ششم سال1373؛ موضوع تاریخ فلسفه ی غرب از نویسندگان بریتانیا - سده 20م
شرح نقادانه ی «تاریخ فلسفه» در غرب، از هزاره ی نخست پیش از میلاد مسیح، تا اواسط سده ی بیستم میلادی؛ جناب «نجف دریابندری» در پیشگفتار خود بر کتاب مینویسند: (احساس خوانشگر تاریخ «راسل»، همانند احساس جوان کنجکاویست، که همراه پدر ستیهنده، و زبان آور خود، به دیدار بزرگان تاریخ تفکر میرود، و به گفتگوی پرحرارت پدر، با آنها گوش میدهد؛ و بسیار چیزها - چه از باب معلومات فلسفی، و چه از باب شیوه های جدل - میآموزد.)؛ «تاریخ فلسفه ی غرب»، بازنویسی سلسله درسهایی است، که «راسل» از سال1940میلادی، تا سال1943میلادی، در «آمریکا» داده بودند، کتاب در تابستان سال1944میلادی و در «انگلستان»، برای انتشار آماده شد
کتاب از سه فصل تشکیل شده است: «فلسفه قدیم»؛ «فلسفه قرون وسطی»؛ «فلسفه عصر جدید»؛ نویسنده کوشیده است تا در هر فصل به اوضاع فکری فلاسفه و پیشرفت علم فلسفه در میان جوامع و تکامل آن، بپردازد، و تاریخ فلسفه را با روشی نقادانه، مورد تحلیل و نقد قرار دهد
در بخش نخست، تاریخ پیدایش فلسفه از دوران پیش از «سقراط» و پیش از رشد وهمه گیری فلسفه در «یونان» آغاز شده، تا «سقراط»، «افلاطون» و «ارسطو» ادامه مییابد (که مهمترین بخش این کتاب در فصل نخست نیز همین مبحث است) و سرانجام بحث با فلاسفه پس از «ارسطو» به پایان میرسد
بخش دوم؛ به فلسفه در دوران سیطره ی کلیسا پرداخته اند، دوران کلیسا و عصر گسترش مسیحیت در اروپا، همان دورانی است که ما به لحاظ تاریخی با عنوان «قرون وسطی (سده های میانی)» میشناسیم؛ در آن دوران با وجود خفقان سیاسی و مذهبی در غرب، اما انگشت شمار فیلسوفانی، پای به عرصه ی همین گیتی نهادند؛ اما نکته جالب توجه در باره ی «سده های میانی» آن است، که در آن دوران، هرچند غرب در انحطاط فکری قرار داشت، ولی شرق در اوج بود؛ دانشمندان ایرانی و اسلامی، و فلاسفه بزرگ ایرانی، نظیر «سهروردی» و «ابنسینا» در آن زمان در مشرق زمین حاضر بودند؛ در واقع اگر ایران و جهان مشرق، در آن دوران به پیشرفت ادامه نمیداد، همگی دستاوردهای علمی و فلسفی دنیای کهن از بین میرفت؛ شرق در این دوران پلی برای انتقال «فلسفه یونان باستان» به دنیای غرب قلمداد میشود
بخش سوم و پایانی کتاب، به بررسی فیلسوفان جدید، در دوران پس از رنسانس در غرب، پرداخته اند؛ در این بخش، فلاسفه ی بزرگوار، از «اسپینوزا» تا «دکارت»، و از «روسو» و «هگل»، تا «شوپنهاور» و «نیچه»؛ و…؛ مورد نقد قرار گرفته، و نظر همگی آن بزرگواران، مورد گزارش ایشان قرار و آرام گرفته و در کتاب آرمیده اند؛ تا باز هم این دیار نیز از خواب خوش بیدار شود؛ تا «سهرودی و پورسینا»های دیگری باز هم برویند
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 25/09/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 08/08/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
July 3, 2009
This is a remarkable book. Over the years I have found various reasons to look into it now and again, but have never read the whole thing. Mostly I’ve read the bits about particular philosophers: Heraclitus, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Marx for example. I hadn’t realised that ‘dipping’ in this way was missing much of the point of the book.
This is not just a history of Western Philosophy, but also a bit of a ‘how do all of the main schools of Western Philosophy fit into their culture and times'. So, much time is spent giving thumb-nail sketches of the history of certain periods in a way that will help the student of philosophy understand where philosophers were coming from when they said such bizarre things as: nothing changes, everything changes, everything is fire, everything is water, matter does not exist, mind does not exist, and so on.
He makes some truly fascinating points in this book – not least that there is no philosophy that is wholly logically consistent and that sometimes the danger is when a philosopher seeks to remain logically consistent rather than acknowledge the horrendous conclusions that the logical consistency of his ideas forces him toward. I use the male pronoun not simply because Russell also uses it throughout, but because all of the philosophers discussed sport a Y-chromosome.
The book is divided into three parts: Ancient Philosophy, Catholic Philosophy and Modern Philosophy. It was written during the Second World War and I think this shows in part, particularly when Russell is discussing the merits of some philosophers – not least Nietzsche and Marx. I had thought that I would find the middle section on Catholics the least interesting – I believe that we ‘moderns’ feel we have much more in common with Ancients than we do with the Catholic scholastics of the dark and middle ages – but Russell is very kind to these philosophers, although in the main I found them to be little more than pedants adding Christian footnotes to Plato and Aristotle. Perhaps, in another life, I will have time to read one or two of them and see if my attitude changes.
This is not a book that requires either an extensive knowledge of philosophy, nor an extensive knowledge of history to be understood. Russell is a remarkably clear writer (something that for a philosopher really is worth commenting on and something that deserves the highest praise). He also is occasionally quite amusing. Now, I know that people who follow either Marx, Kant, Hegel, Dewey, Nietzsche or even Aristotle might find quite a few things to say in disagreement with Mr Russell, but that in no way takes away from the value of this book. I’ve listened to a Teaching Company ‘Great Ideas In Philosophy’ course which covered all of the philosophers discussed here, and I think Russell does at least as good a job as was done there. Invaluable is a word that is grossly overused on this site – particularly by me – but I do think this book gives an invaluable helicopter view of the history of Western Philosophy that is both accessible and often profound.
I once received my lowest mark in my degree for saying pretty much what Russell says here about his mate Dewey - I am rather proud of the fact that I've only discovered our shared view now - twenty years later. I’ve always found Instrumentalism (otherwise known as Pragmatism) a thoroughly unsatisfactory philosophical standpoint, despite both James and Dewey seeming to be nice enough people in themselves. My main problem with the total rejection of the possibility of any sense that there might be ‘truth’ (which Russell, as might be expected, confines to logical statements) has always had a bit of a smell about it. When I said this in a class paper at Uni I was nearly lynched by both the lecturer (a declared Instrumentalist) and the other students (who knew better than I which side their bread was buttered). I think Russell’s arguments in this section are similar to the ones I tried to make, but are made in a way that is infinitely clearer than I was capable of at the time - a time when I was keen to seem very 'philosophic' ie, totally unclear. Essentially, I've always thought that to move away from discussing the ‘truth’ of statements and to instead consider their ‘efficacy’ is a slippery slope and one that can all too easily bring us to splash down into logical and moral difficulties.
His discussion of Bergson’s philosophy was enough to ensure I will never read anything by Bergson. I find irrationalism dull and, what is even worse, mind-numbingly ‘poetic’ in the very worst sense of that word. Sometimes one needs to be obscure because what you are trying to say does not allow you to be immediately clear. However, as Russell displays so beautifully in this book, that is rarely really necessary and the onus is on the writer to make it clear why being turgid or obscure to the point of impenetrability is in either the interests of the reader or the writer.
What is best about this book is that it has inspired me to read some more Plato (I started his complete dialogues some time ago, but things got in the way.) Russell's discussion of Socrates and his relationship to Plato is worth reading the book on its own. Plato is a fascinating character, not least because it seems a case can be made that he became increasingly less convinced of his theory of forms as his dialogues went on. Given that this is the core of his system, this would seem somewhat of a problem.
The book ends by saying that a consistent philosophy that takes into consideration Quantum Theory is still to be written - as little as I know of modern philosophy, I would imagine the intervening 60 years have done little to correct this want. Quantum Theory still remains an enigma and all too often leaves the door wide open for all types of very silly ideas.
This is a book that repays the effort of reading it – it is not a short introduction by any means (being over 800 pages), but it is only a difficult read when he discusses philosophers like Hegel and Bergson who are notoriously difficult anyway. For what this book sets out to do – pretty much, give the average reader an overview of Western Philosophical thought and its place within Western Culture and History, it does a remarkable job. Although I still think it is very handy as a ready reference on a great many philosophers – it is much better, as I've found, to have read it all first.
This is not just a history of Western Philosophy, but also a bit of a ‘how do all of the main schools of Western Philosophy fit into their culture and times'. So, much time is spent giving thumb-nail sketches of the history of certain periods in a way that will help the student of philosophy understand where philosophers were coming from when they said such bizarre things as: nothing changes, everything changes, everything is fire, everything is water, matter does not exist, mind does not exist, and so on.
He makes some truly fascinating points in this book – not least that there is no philosophy that is wholly logically consistent and that sometimes the danger is when a philosopher seeks to remain logically consistent rather than acknowledge the horrendous conclusions that the logical consistency of his ideas forces him toward. I use the male pronoun not simply because Russell also uses it throughout, but because all of the philosophers discussed sport a Y-chromosome.
The book is divided into three parts: Ancient Philosophy, Catholic Philosophy and Modern Philosophy. It was written during the Second World War and I think this shows in part, particularly when Russell is discussing the merits of some philosophers – not least Nietzsche and Marx. I had thought that I would find the middle section on Catholics the least interesting – I believe that we ‘moderns’ feel we have much more in common with Ancients than we do with the Catholic scholastics of the dark and middle ages – but Russell is very kind to these philosophers, although in the main I found them to be little more than pedants adding Christian footnotes to Plato and Aristotle. Perhaps, in another life, I will have time to read one or two of them and see if my attitude changes.
This is not a book that requires either an extensive knowledge of philosophy, nor an extensive knowledge of history to be understood. Russell is a remarkably clear writer (something that for a philosopher really is worth commenting on and something that deserves the highest praise). He also is occasionally quite amusing. Now, I know that people who follow either Marx, Kant, Hegel, Dewey, Nietzsche or even Aristotle might find quite a few things to say in disagreement with Mr Russell, but that in no way takes away from the value of this book. I’ve listened to a Teaching Company ‘Great Ideas In Philosophy’ course which covered all of the philosophers discussed here, and I think Russell does at least as good a job as was done there. Invaluable is a word that is grossly overused on this site – particularly by me – but I do think this book gives an invaluable helicopter view of the history of Western Philosophy that is both accessible and often profound.
I once received my lowest mark in my degree for saying pretty much what Russell says here about his mate Dewey - I am rather proud of the fact that I've only discovered our shared view now - twenty years later. I’ve always found Instrumentalism (otherwise known as Pragmatism) a thoroughly unsatisfactory philosophical standpoint, despite both James and Dewey seeming to be nice enough people in themselves. My main problem with the total rejection of the possibility of any sense that there might be ‘truth’ (which Russell, as might be expected, confines to logical statements) has always had a bit of a smell about it. When I said this in a class paper at Uni I was nearly lynched by both the lecturer (a declared Instrumentalist) and the other students (who knew better than I which side their bread was buttered). I think Russell’s arguments in this section are similar to the ones I tried to make, but are made in a way that is infinitely clearer than I was capable of at the time - a time when I was keen to seem very 'philosophic' ie, totally unclear. Essentially, I've always thought that to move away from discussing the ‘truth’ of statements and to instead consider their ‘efficacy’ is a slippery slope and one that can all too easily bring us to splash down into logical and moral difficulties.
His discussion of Bergson’s philosophy was enough to ensure I will never read anything by Bergson. I find irrationalism dull and, what is even worse, mind-numbingly ‘poetic’ in the very worst sense of that word. Sometimes one needs to be obscure because what you are trying to say does not allow you to be immediately clear. However, as Russell displays so beautifully in this book, that is rarely really necessary and the onus is on the writer to make it clear why being turgid or obscure to the point of impenetrability is in either the interests of the reader or the writer.
What is best about this book is that it has inspired me to read some more Plato (I started his complete dialogues some time ago, but things got in the way.) Russell's discussion of Socrates and his relationship to Plato is worth reading the book on its own. Plato is a fascinating character, not least because it seems a case can be made that he became increasingly less convinced of his theory of forms as his dialogues went on. Given that this is the core of his system, this would seem somewhat of a problem.
The book ends by saying that a consistent philosophy that takes into consideration Quantum Theory is still to be written - as little as I know of modern philosophy, I would imagine the intervening 60 years have done little to correct this want. Quantum Theory still remains an enigma and all too often leaves the door wide open for all types of very silly ideas.
This is a book that repays the effort of reading it – it is not a short introduction by any means (being over 800 pages), but it is only a difficult read when he discusses philosophers like Hegel and Bergson who are notoriously difficult anyway. For what this book sets out to do – pretty much, give the average reader an overview of Western Philosophical thought and its place within Western Culture and History, it does a remarkable job. Although I still think it is very handy as a ready reference on a great many philosophers – it is much better, as I've found, to have read it all first.
June 2, 2016
I enjoyed this a bit too much. The History of Western Philosophy is exactly my kind of book, and so this review will be biased.
This, however, illustrates my first point. One’s opinion of this work will largely depend on one’s opinion of Russell. This is because he frequently injects his views, ideas, and opinions into the text. I happen to love the guy; I’m sure reactions will differ.
In this history, Russell does not entirely succeed in his stated goal. What he was trying to do was to firmly situate major thinkers in their historical and cultural context, and then explore the ways that history both shapes and is shaped by these thinkers. This is more successful in the first two thirds, but drops off rather steeply in the section on modern philosophy. Following this plan, the book is divided into chapters on history and chapters on philosophers.
Russell is an excellent writer. Even his fiercest critics grant him this merit. He has a knack for presenting abstract ideas with penetrating clarity. On top of this, he has a delightfully dry sense of humor, which he employs to great effect in breaking up turgid analysis. In general, Russell is at his strongest when presenting the philosophy itself; he is at his weakest when writing history. His ability to generalize is the cause of both qualities.
As I mentioned above, Russell frequently injects his own views into the book. It should be noted, though, that he is crystal-clear when he is doing so. The reader is never confused as to whether it is Russell’s idea or that of the philosopher under discussion. The bulk of these additions are Russell’s opinions on philosophical problems and the success of their attempted solutions. Because Russell himself is one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century, these discussions are some of the most fascinating parts of the work. I would go so far to say—and I am in no position to say this—that no other book can give the student a greater insight into Russell’s thinking. He takes the opportunity to address nearly every aspect of philosophy: ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, political philosophy, etc.
Russell, like everybody, has biases. He is particularly antagonistic to Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, and Rousseau. Nevertheless, I found his discussions of their ideas to be quite fair. The Nietzsche chapter even ends with a fictional conversation between Nietzsche, Buddha, and God. The only philosopher who I thought was manhandled was Plato, who Russell treats as he would "any contemporary advocate of totalitarianism." He doesn’t add that Plato almost singlehandedly created political philosophy.
The reader of this book must be conscious of when it was written—at the height of WWII. Keeping this in mind, many of the motivations for Russell’s views become much more sensible. In the background of the text, running through every page, is his grappling with the questions: “what is the future for civilization? How did Hitler come to wield so much power?” Russell comes to the conclusion that the Nazis represent the culmination of a strain of anti-intellectualism and romanticism inaugurated by Rousseau and carried forward by Nietzsche, with roots extending all the way back to Plato. I disagree with this analysis. However, in my opinion, when seen in this light, almost all of the flaws in this work vanish. In fact, it would have been despicable to not have been concerned with these issues.
Russell believed that educating the population in science, skepticism, and rational thinking were the keys to preventing further atrocities and making the world a better place. This book, written for a popular audience, is a part of that effort. The world could use more people like Bertrand Russell.
[Note: Something I forgot to mention. This book may not be so great an introduction to philosophy for beginners. Russell is opinionated, so you are likely to get a skewed picture of a philosopher's outlook and relevance if you're first exposed to him through Russell. Additionally, because Russell is an imposing thinker himself, this book is not philosophy-lite. A History of Western Philosophy is far more enjoyable once you have actually read the thinkers yourself. This makes the experience of reading Russell's opinions like having an intelligent conversation with a fellow-reader. Russell is not an expert on many of the subjects he is writing about here, so it is quite legitimate to disagree with him. In fact, that's part of the value of this book.]
This, however, illustrates my first point. One’s opinion of this work will largely depend on one’s opinion of Russell. This is because he frequently injects his views, ideas, and opinions into the text. I happen to love the guy; I’m sure reactions will differ.
In this history, Russell does not entirely succeed in his stated goal. What he was trying to do was to firmly situate major thinkers in their historical and cultural context, and then explore the ways that history both shapes and is shaped by these thinkers. This is more successful in the first two thirds, but drops off rather steeply in the section on modern philosophy. Following this plan, the book is divided into chapters on history and chapters on philosophers.
Russell is an excellent writer. Even his fiercest critics grant him this merit. He has a knack for presenting abstract ideas with penetrating clarity. On top of this, he has a delightfully dry sense of humor, which he employs to great effect in breaking up turgid analysis. In general, Russell is at his strongest when presenting the philosophy itself; he is at his weakest when writing history. His ability to generalize is the cause of both qualities.
As I mentioned above, Russell frequently injects his own views into the book. It should be noted, though, that he is crystal-clear when he is doing so. The reader is never confused as to whether it is Russell’s idea or that of the philosopher under discussion. The bulk of these additions are Russell’s opinions on philosophical problems and the success of their attempted solutions. Because Russell himself is one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century, these discussions are some of the most fascinating parts of the work. I would go so far to say—and I am in no position to say this—that no other book can give the student a greater insight into Russell’s thinking. He takes the opportunity to address nearly every aspect of philosophy: ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, political philosophy, etc.
Russell, like everybody, has biases. He is particularly antagonistic to Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, and Rousseau. Nevertheless, I found his discussions of their ideas to be quite fair. The Nietzsche chapter even ends with a fictional conversation between Nietzsche, Buddha, and God. The only philosopher who I thought was manhandled was Plato, who Russell treats as he would "any contemporary advocate of totalitarianism." He doesn’t add that Plato almost singlehandedly created political philosophy.
The reader of this book must be conscious of when it was written—at the height of WWII. Keeping this in mind, many of the motivations for Russell’s views become much more sensible. In the background of the text, running through every page, is his grappling with the questions: “what is the future for civilization? How did Hitler come to wield so much power?” Russell comes to the conclusion that the Nazis represent the culmination of a strain of anti-intellectualism and romanticism inaugurated by Rousseau and carried forward by Nietzsche, with roots extending all the way back to Plato. I disagree with this analysis. However, in my opinion, when seen in this light, almost all of the flaws in this work vanish. In fact, it would have been despicable to not have been concerned with these issues.
Russell believed that educating the population in science, skepticism, and rational thinking were the keys to preventing further atrocities and making the world a better place. This book, written for a popular audience, is a part of that effort. The world could use more people like Bertrand Russell.
[Note: Something I forgot to mention. This book may not be so great an introduction to philosophy for beginners. Russell is opinionated, so you are likely to get a skewed picture of a philosopher's outlook and relevance if you're first exposed to him through Russell. Additionally, because Russell is an imposing thinker himself, this book is not philosophy-lite. A History of Western Philosophy is far more enjoyable once you have actually read the thinkers yourself. This makes the experience of reading Russell's opinions like having an intelligent conversation with a fellow-reader. Russell is not an expert on many of the subjects he is writing about here, so it is quite legitimate to disagree with him. In fact, that's part of the value of this book.]
January 29, 2019
ترجمه خیلی خوب بود، هر چند گاهی جملات قابل فهم نبود، که نمیدونم مشکل از قصور فهم من بود یا از ترجمه.
تاریخ انتقادی فلسفه
اسم درست این کتاب، "تاریخ انتقادی فلسفه" است، نه "تاریخ فلسفه". هر فصل از کتاب، تقسیم شده به دو قسمت: قسمت کوتاه (و گاه نارسای) نخست، به معرفی اجمالی بخشی (و نه تمام) از فلسفه ی فیلسوف خاص میپردازه. قسمت بلند و مفصل دوم، به انتقاد از فلسفه ش. هر چند خیلی این انتقادها دقیق و لذت بخش بودن، (مخصوصاً با نثرِ گاه طنز آمیز کتاب که نمی دونم کار راسل بوده، یا نجف دریابندری) اما نکته ی مهم، اینه که کسی که تازه میخواد با نظریات یه فیلسوف آشنا بشه، میخواد بیشتر حرف های اون فیلسوف رو هضم کنه و بفهمه و حالا فعلاً دنبال صحیح و سقیم بودنش نیست. کتاب از این جهت ضعیف کار کرده. در نتیجه به عنوان اولین کتاب فلسفه، پیشنهاد نمیشه. من نصف کتاب رو اول خوندم، بعد رفتم دو کتاب دیگه در تاریخ فلسفه غرب خوندم که آشنا بشم، و دوباره برگشتم سر این کتاب.
نکات پراکنده
راسل کار جالبی میکنه و در همه ی نظریات، سعی میکنه پسزمینه ی اجتماعی اون نظریه رو هم مد نظر داشته باشه. خیلی جاها نشون میده که این نظریه، مولود فلان شرایط اجتماعی بوده. این کار تطبیقی تاریخ فلسفه و تاریخ سیاسی-اجتماعی، خ��لی جالب بود.
گاهی هم یه نکاتی از نظریات فیلسوف میگه، که هیچ جای دیگه پیداش نخواهید کرد، چون اصلاً در نظریات اون فیلسوف نیست. بلکه استنباط راسل از نظریات اون فرده و میگه: اگه فیلسوف الف رو قبول داشته، پس ب رو هم قبول داشته.
این نکات هم خیلی خیلی جالبن.
تاریخ انتقادی فلسفه
اسم درست این کتاب، "تاریخ انتقادی فلسفه" است، نه "تاریخ فلسفه". هر فصل از کتاب، تقسیم شده به دو قسمت: قسمت کوتاه (و گاه نارسای) نخست، به معرفی اجمالی بخشی (و نه تمام) از فلسفه ی فیلسوف خاص میپردازه. قسمت بلند و مفصل دوم، به انتقاد از فلسفه ش. هر چند خیلی این انتقادها دقیق و لذت بخش بودن، (مخصوصاً با نثرِ گاه طنز آمیز کتاب که نمی دونم کار راسل بوده، یا نجف دریابندری) اما نکته ی مهم، اینه که کسی که تازه میخواد با نظریات یه فیلسوف آشنا بشه، میخواد بیشتر حرف های اون فیلسوف رو هضم کنه و بفهمه و حالا فعلاً دنبال صحیح و سقیم بودنش نیست. کتاب از این جهت ضعیف کار کرده. در نتیجه به عنوان اولین کتاب فلسفه، پیشنهاد نمیشه. من نصف کتاب رو اول خوندم، بعد رفتم دو کتاب دیگه در تاریخ فلسفه غرب خوندم که آشنا بشم، و دوباره برگشتم سر این کتاب.
نکات پراکنده
راسل کار جالبی میکنه و در همه ی نظریات، سعی میکنه پسزمینه ی اجتماعی اون نظریه رو هم مد نظر داشته باشه. خیلی جاها نشون میده که این نظریه، مولود فلان شرایط اجتماعی بوده. این کار تطبیقی تاریخ فلسفه و تاریخ سیاسی-اجتماعی، خ��لی جالب بود.
گاهی هم یه نکاتی از نظریات فیلسوف میگه، که هیچ جای دیگه پیداش نخواهید کرد، چون اصلاً در نظریات اون فیلسوف نیست. بلکه استنباط راسل از نظریات اون فرده و میگه: اگه فیلسوف الف رو قبول داشته، پس ب رو هم قبول داشته.
این نکات هم خیلی خیلی جالبن.
November 7, 2019
Bertrand Russel rocks the entire history of Western Philosophy like a boss! Long but, oh so worth it!
January 11, 2020
به عنوان اولین کتاب برای فلسفه دانستن، مناسب نیست. چون میزان مطالب بسیار فراوان است و مطالب فشرده توضیح داده میشوند. در نتیجه دست گرفتن کتاب و از اول تا آخر خواندن برای آشنایی با فلسفه، چندان راهگشا نیست. با این حجم بالای مطالب، فراموشی بخش زیادی از مطالب ناگریز و فهم کامل مطالب بسیار بعید است.
به نظرم بهترن حالت خواندن این کتاب، این است که هر وقت جایی از یک فیلسوف خواندید، به بخش مربوط به او در این کتاب مراجعه کنید. با این رویکرد و با توجه به اینکه راسل در مورد هر فیلسوفی نقدهایی هم میآورد، کتاب برای مراجعهی موردی تبدیل به منبع باارزشتری میشود.
ورود جدی من به فلسفه با همین کتاب بود. در نتیجه دچار مشکلاتی شدم که در بند اول آوردم. شاید بهترین راه ورود به فلسفه، شروع با کتابهای غیر جدیتری مثل «دنیای سوفی»، سپس خواندن یک یا چند کتاب موضوعی و جامع و بعد خواندن با سیر تاریخی باشد.
برای خواندن براساس سیر تاریخی، لزوماً نیازی به خواندن خود کتابهای فیلسوفان نیست. میشود ابتدا یا تنها کتب راهنما و شرحها را خواند. البته که نگارش و محتوای برخی از کتابهای اصلی آسان است و میتوان همانها را خواند. انتخاب بین کتب راهنما یا اصل کتب باید موردی انجام شود.
از کتاب
فلسفه، چنان كه من از این کلمه در مییابم، حد وسط الهیات و علم است. مانند الهیات، عبارت است از تفكر دربارهی موضوعاتی كه تاكنون به دست آوردن دانش قطعی درباره شان میسر نشده است؛ و مانند علم، به عقل بشر تكیه دارد، نه به دلایل نقلی - خواه مراد از دلایل نقلی سنت باشد، خواه وحی و مكاشفه. من میگویم هرگونه دانش «قطعی» علم است، و هر گونه «عقیدهی جزمی» كه از حدود دانش قطعی قدم فراتر بگذارد به الهیات تعلق دارد. اما میان الهیات و علم برزخی نیز هست نامكشوف برای هردو، و در معرض حملهی هر دو جانب؛ این برزخ همان فلسفه است.
*
نهضت رمانتیک در هنر و ادبیات و سیاست بستگی دارد به این مسلک ذهنی در قضاوت راجع به افـراد بشـر نـه چون اعضای اجتماع، بلکه به مثابهی موضوعات تفکر که از لحاظ علم الجمال لذت بخشند. ببر از گوسفند زیباتر است، ولی ما ترجیح میدهیم که ببر در قفس محبوس باشد. یک نفر رومانتیکِ نمونه، در قفس را باز میکند و از جست و خیز بسیار زیبای ببر، که منجر به هلاک گوسفند میشود، لذت میبرد. وی انسان را تشویق میکنـد کـه ببـر باشـد، ولی چون در این کار توفیق یابد نتایج آن چندان مطبوع و مطلوب نیست.
به نظرم بهترن حالت خواندن این کتاب، این است که هر وقت جایی از یک فیلسوف خواندید، به بخش مربوط به او در این کتاب مراجعه کنید. با این رویکرد و با توجه به اینکه راسل در مورد هر فیلسوفی نقدهایی هم میآورد، کتاب برای مراجعهی موردی تبدیل به منبع باارزشتری میشود.
ورود جدی من به فلسفه با همین کتاب بود. در نتیجه دچار مشکلاتی شدم که در بند اول آوردم. شاید بهترین راه ورود به فلسفه، شروع با کتابهای غیر جدیتری مثل «دنیای سوفی»، سپس خواندن یک یا چند کتاب موضوعی و جامع و بعد خواندن با سیر تاریخی باشد.
برای خواندن براساس سیر تاریخی، لزوماً نیازی به خواندن خود کتابهای فیلسوفان نیست. میشود ابتدا یا تنها کتب راهنما و شرحها را خواند. البته که نگارش و محتوای برخی از کتابهای اصلی آسان است و میتوان همانها را خواند. انتخاب بین کتب راهنما یا اصل کتب باید موردی انجام شود.
از کتاب
فلسفه، چنان كه من از این کلمه در مییابم، حد وسط الهیات و علم است. مانند الهیات، عبارت است از تفكر دربارهی موضوعاتی كه تاكنون به دست آوردن دانش قطعی درباره شان میسر نشده است؛ و مانند علم، به عقل بشر تكیه دارد، نه به دلایل نقلی - خواه مراد از دلایل نقلی سنت باشد، خواه وحی و مكاشفه. من میگویم هرگونه دانش «قطعی» علم است، و هر گونه «عقیدهی جزمی» كه از حدود دانش قطعی قدم فراتر بگذارد به الهیات تعلق دارد. اما میان الهیات و علم برزخی نیز هست نامكشوف برای هردو، و در معرض حملهی هر دو جانب؛ این برزخ همان فلسفه است.
*
نهضت رمانتیک در هنر و ادبیات و سیاست بستگی دارد به این مسلک ذهنی در قضاوت راجع به افـراد بشـر نـه چون اعضای اجتماع، بلکه به مثابهی موضوعات تفکر که از لحاظ علم الجمال لذت بخشند. ببر از گوسفند زیباتر است، ولی ما ترجیح میدهیم که ببر در قفس محبوس باشد. یک نفر رومانتیکِ نمونه، در قفس را باز میکند و از جست و خیز بسیار زیبای ببر، که منجر به هلاک گوسفند میشود، لذت میبرد. وی انسان را تشویق میکنـد کـه ببـر باشـد، ولی چون در این کار توفیق یابد نتایج آن چندان مطبوع و مطلوب نیست.
October 16, 2019
Such an interesting and comprehensive guide to the best thinkers in Western Philosophy. I particularly enjoyed the conclusion where Russell articulates his perspective on the purpose of philosophy as a discipline.
August 6, 2011
At first it seems impressive that a single individual could accumulate such a vast understanding of Werstern Philosophy from Thales to Dewey. At first it seems that the work is well researched, objective, and only humorously judgemental at times. . . And for the first five-hundred pages these feelings seem to preside. Yet, when Russell reaches what, to me, is the important period of Philosophy, namely the modern period from the Rennaisance till the present, I find that Russell's analysis of each philosopher begins to grow shallower, leading not to a decent caricature or snapshot of the work in question, but more to a wholly unfair criticism of all those Russell finds himself at odds with.
Strangely enough, with the men of history that he finds himself in agreement with, he expresses a humility in regards to their work, clearly laying out his interpretation even though he dares not say that he truly understands m as fully as intended . . . this same humitlty, when faced with Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Kant, Hegel etc. is turned into a ridiculous (and hypocritical) demolition of their works on a shallow basis. It remains unclear whether Russell in-fact understands the depths of his opponent's work, although it doesn't matter to him.
Sadly, even to an amateur as myself, his criticisms seem to miss the point entirely. In what I assume to be an attempt at avoiding obscurantism and reaching a simplicity for the layman, it seems that he has relegated subtlety for the blockish ideas of solid forms. No philosophy stands fairly against such disregard for language, intepretation etc.
Overall the work may act as a decent introduction to philosophy as a whole, but I personally feel you would be better off delving into the faster read and likely more honest books out there . . . Philosophy for Dummies, Introducing Philosophy etc. I'm sure this book would be much to the liking of anyone with the same mindset as Russel himself, but have to say that objectivity is here greatly tarnished by shallow thought, misunderstanding, stupidity (yes), and an obsession with modern-day values and prejuidices with no apparent explanation for his own ethical standpoint.
Strangely enough, with the men of history that he finds himself in agreement with, he expresses a humility in regards to their work, clearly laying out his interpretation even though he dares not say that he truly understands m as fully as intended . . . this same humitlty, when faced with Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Kant, Hegel etc. is turned into a ridiculous (and hypocritical) demolition of their works on a shallow basis. It remains unclear whether Russell in-fact understands the depths of his opponent's work, although it doesn't matter to him.
Sadly, even to an amateur as myself, his criticisms seem to miss the point entirely. In what I assume to be an attempt at avoiding obscurantism and reaching a simplicity for the layman, it seems that he has relegated subtlety for the blockish ideas of solid forms. No philosophy stands fairly against such disregard for language, intepretation etc.
Overall the work may act as a decent introduction to philosophy as a whole, but I personally feel you would be better off delving into the faster read and likely more honest books out there . . . Philosophy for Dummies, Introducing Philosophy etc. I'm sure this book would be much to the liking of anyone with the same mindset as Russel himself, but have to say that objectivity is here greatly tarnished by shallow thought, misunderstanding, stupidity (yes), and an obsession with modern-day values and prejuidices with no apparent explanation for his own ethical standpoint.
May 4, 2018
Enjoyed the comprehensive eye-opening knowledge. Highly recommended.
Want to read
September 29, 2015Overview
Bertrand Russell's History consists of 76 Chapters, almost all under 20 pages.
Each Chapter contains a summary of one major philosopher's key arguments interlaced with criticism that reflects Russell's own priorities and perspectives.
In a sense, it is one philosopher judging the work of another.
We therefore need to exercise caution in relying on Russell's methodology, perspectives and conclusions.
Apart from this reservation, I actually really enjoy his style. He is very clear and seems to be quite worldly and amusing. I get the impression I might have enjoyed sitting next to him at a dinner party.
My Reading Project
As part of a broader reading project, I will read and review some individual Chapters in My Writings.
I will post links to My Writings below.
Immanuel Kant
http://www.goodreads.com/story/show/3...
It's worth noting that he gives Kant more space than Hegel and almost twice as much space as Marx.
Bertrand Russell's History consists of 76 Chapters, almost all under 20 pages.
Each Chapter contains a summary of one major philosopher's key arguments interlaced with criticism that reflects Russell's own priorities and perspectives.
In a sense, it is one philosopher judging the work of another.
We therefore need to exercise caution in relying on Russell's methodology, perspectives and conclusions.
Apart from this reservation, I actually really enjoy his style. He is very clear and seems to be quite worldly and amusing. I get the impression I might have enjoyed sitting next to him at a dinner party.
My Reading Project
As part of a broader reading project, I will read and review some individual Chapters in My Writings.
I will post links to My Writings below.
Immanuel Kant
http://www.goodreads.com/story/show/3...
It's worth noting that he gives Kant more space than Hegel and almost twice as much space as Marx.
May 5, 2022
Cogito, ergo sum; God is dead.... Too often the ideas of past philosophers are eclipsed by glib taglines. Russell invites us to go deeper: what motivated these philosophers? How have their ideas evolved? Russell creates a historical context that clarifies their concerns. This book is as much about history as it is about philosophy. “To understand an age or a nation, we must understand its philosophy, and to understand its philosophy we must ourselves be in some degree philosophers. There is a reciprocal causation: the circumstances of men's lives do much to determine their philosophy, but, conversely, their philsophy does much to determine their circumstances.” (p.11)
Russell also delineates some broader themes. Mystical elements, what he calls “Orphic,” intertwined with logic in Greek philosophy. Clergy and secular authorities engaged in a struggle throughout the middle ages for ascendancy, shaping the arguments of the Scholastics. The ongoing conflict between individual freedom and orderly governance was intensified by the romantic era. The latter is of particular concern to Russell who wrote this book in the aftermath of World War II. “If we could all live solitary and without labour, we could all enjoy this ecstasy of independence; since we cannot, its delights are only available to madmen and dictators. Revolt of solitary instincts against social bonds is the key to the philosophy, the politics, and the sentiments, not only of what is commonly called the romantic movement, but of its progeny down to the present day.” (p.863) At the same time, Russell is wary of an arid rationalism. “Prudence versus passion is a conflict that runs through history. It is not a conflict in which we ought to side wholly with either party.” (p.41)
Russell's style is entertaining and irreverent. He skewers Nietsche with his psychological analysis. He chides both Socrates and St. Thomas Aquinas for intellectual dishonesty, finding arguments for positions they have decided in advance rather than engaging in pure inquiry.
He creates indelible portraits of these men. Schopenhauer's semi-mystical pronouncements on “The Will” is paired with his self-indulgent lifestyle and celebratory exclamation, 'Obit anus, abit onus' (the old woman dies, the burden departs) on the death of his landlady whom he owed annual compensation for shoving her down a flight of stairs.
Russell shows how philosophy has evolved from a focus on things to a focus on process, bringing it in alignment with quantum physics. Space-time, he maintains, is now space and time and the idea of a continuum is challenged with the idea of intervals. “Einstein substituted events for particles; each event had to each other a relation called 'interval,' which would be analysed in various ways into a time-element and a space-element.” (p.1059)
This is a thousand plus page book. My understanding of philosophy remains imperfect. My takeaway? Ideas have intellectual pedigrees. That history helps to explain what an ever-changing language has obscured and reveals criticisms that remain to be addressed.
Three of us formed a splinter book club to read this book. We could not have made it to the finish without our weekly discussions. Despite its length and heavy focus on metaphysics, this was definitely a worthwhile read.
Russell also delineates some broader themes. Mystical elements, what he calls “Orphic,” intertwined with logic in Greek philosophy. Clergy and secular authorities engaged in a struggle throughout the middle ages for ascendancy, shaping the arguments of the Scholastics. The ongoing conflict between individual freedom and orderly governance was intensified by the romantic era. The latter is of particular concern to Russell who wrote this book in the aftermath of World War II. “If we could all live solitary and without labour, we could all enjoy this ecstasy of independence; since we cannot, its delights are only available to madmen and dictators. Revolt of solitary instincts against social bonds is the key to the philosophy, the politics, and the sentiments, not only of what is commonly called the romantic movement, but of its progeny down to the present day.” (p.863) At the same time, Russell is wary of an arid rationalism. “Prudence versus passion is a conflict that runs through history. It is not a conflict in which we ought to side wholly with either party.” (p.41)
Russell's style is entertaining and irreverent. He skewers Nietsche with his psychological analysis. He chides both Socrates and St. Thomas Aquinas for intellectual dishonesty, finding arguments for positions they have decided in advance rather than engaging in pure inquiry.
He creates indelible portraits of these men. Schopenhauer's semi-mystical pronouncements on “The Will” is paired with his self-indulgent lifestyle and celebratory exclamation, 'Obit anus, abit onus' (the old woman dies, the burden departs) on the death of his landlady whom he owed annual compensation for shoving her down a flight of stairs.
Russell shows how philosophy has evolved from a focus on things to a focus on process, bringing it in alignment with quantum physics. Space-time, he maintains, is now space and time and the idea of a continuum is challenged with the idea of intervals. “Einstein substituted events for particles; each event had to each other a relation called 'interval,' which would be analysed in various ways into a time-element and a space-element.” (p.1059)
This is a thousand plus page book. My understanding of philosophy remains imperfect. My takeaway? Ideas have intellectual pedigrees. That history helps to explain what an ever-changing language has obscured and reveals criticisms that remain to be addressed.
Three of us formed a splinter book club to read this book. We could not have made it to the finish without our weekly discussions. Despite its length and heavy focus on metaphysics, this was definitely a worthwhile read.
August 21, 2018
This 895-pager (including the index), could alternatively have been titled, just as fittingly, and perhaps even more accurately, "Bertrand Russell's Opinions of Western Philosophers". And, though you now have my opinion as well, don't let that deter you from approaching this well-written work.
His broad overview of Western philosophy was published in 1945, toward the end of World War II, and includes brief to medium length chapters on many major philosophers, from the pre-Socratics to John Dewey. Russell has divided this work into three major divisions: 1. Ancient Philosophy, from the rise of Greek civilization through Plotinus (approx. 6th century to A.D. 270), 2. Catholic Philosophy, from Augustine to William of Occam (approx. 339 to 1350), and 3. Modern Philosophy, from the Italian Renaissance to John Dewey (approx. 1350 to 1945).
In each of these periods, Russell is careful to provide a meaningful amount of historical context, as he describes the major life events, the ideas, and the influence of the philosophers he covers. He clearly is a man of deep intellect, vast historical knowledge, and very clear and pointed, occasionally controversial, opinions. I also found the care he takes in placing these individuals, and their thought, into the flow of the historical timeline, and the current events of their day, to be quite helpful.
As I read this, what impressed me the most was the clarity with which Bertrand Russell wrote. Maybe I expected a large survey of philosophy to be next to incomprehensible, who knows? But Russell's writing was very clear, interesting, organized, and typically easy to follow, particularly when he worked to summarize the dense, almost impenetrable writings of some of these philosophers into understandable key concepts.
Definitely recommended to anyone with enough interest in the subject to persevere for over 800 pages. You likely won't agree with all of Russell's views, but you'll appreciate his more than considerable knowledge and his skill as a writer.
His broad overview of Western philosophy was published in 1945, toward the end of World War II, and includes brief to medium length chapters on many major philosophers, from the pre-Socratics to John Dewey. Russell has divided this work into three major divisions: 1. Ancient Philosophy, from the rise of Greek civilization through Plotinus (approx. 6th century to A.D. 270), 2. Catholic Philosophy, from Augustine to William of Occam (approx. 339 to 1350), and 3. Modern Philosophy, from the Italian Renaissance to John Dewey (approx. 1350 to 1945).
In each of these periods, Russell is careful to provide a meaningful amount of historical context, as he describes the major life events, the ideas, and the influence of the philosophers he covers. He clearly is a man of deep intellect, vast historical knowledge, and very clear and pointed, occasionally controversial, opinions. I also found the care he takes in placing these individuals, and their thought, into the flow of the historical timeline, and the current events of their day, to be quite helpful.
As I read this, what impressed me the most was the clarity with which Bertrand Russell wrote. Maybe I expected a large survey of philosophy to be next to incomprehensible, who knows? But Russell's writing was very clear, interesting, organized, and typically easy to follow, particularly when he worked to summarize the dense, almost impenetrable writings of some of these philosophers into understandable key concepts.
Definitely recommended to anyone with enough interest in the subject to persevere for over 800 pages. You likely won't agree with all of Russell's views, but you'll appreciate his more than considerable knowledge and his skill as a writer.
July 15, 2011
Not only is this an excellent primer on all the major Western philosophers and an impressive synthesis of the evolution of philosophic thought over a 2500-year span, it's also one of the wittier books I've ever read. I'd be quite interested to hear Bertrand Russell's thoughts on the past 65 years; I did stumble upon his remarkable final statement, written two days before his death at age 97, which shows him putting his formidable powers of rationality to work in succinctly and accurately assessing the nature of the Middle East conflict. Sadly, little has changed in the 40 years since the writing of this statement, as Israel continues to expand into Palestinian territory, to deny the rights of refugees, and "to discover how much more aggression the world will tolerate" (empirical answer: quite a lot):
"The development of the crisis in the Middle East is both dangerous and instructive. For over 20 years Israel has expanded by force of arms. After every stage in this expansion Israel has appealed to “reason” and has suggested “negotiations”. This is the traditional role of the imperial power, because it wishes to consolidate with the least difficulty what it has already taken by violence. Every new conquest becomes the new basis of the proposed negotiation from strength, which ignores the injustice of the previous aggression. The aggression committed by Israel must be condemned, not only because no state has the right to annex foreign territory, but because every expansion is an experiment to discover how much more aggression the world will tolerate.
The refugees who surround Palestine in their hundreds of thousands were described recently by the Washington journalist I.F. Stone as “the moral millstone around the neck of world Jewry.” Many of the refugees are now well into the third decade of their precarious existence in temporary settlements. The tragedy of the people of Palestine is that their country was “given” by a foreign Power to another people for the creation of a new State. The result was that many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made permanently homeless. With every new conflict their number have increased. How much longer is the world willing to endure this spectacle of wanton cruelty? It is abundantly clear that the refugees have every right to the homeland from which they were driven, and the denial of this right is at the heart of the continuing conflict. No people anywhere in the world would accept being expelled en masse from their own country; how can anyone require the people of Palestine to accept a punishment which nobody else would tolerate? A permanent just settlement of the refugees in their homeland is an essential ingredient of any genuine settlement in the Middle East.
We are frequently told that we must sympathize with Israel because of the suffering of the Jews in Europe at the hands of the Nazis. I see in this suggestion no reason to perpetuate any suffering. What Israel is doing today cannot be condoned, and to invoke the horrors of the past to justify those of the present is gross hypocrisy. Not only does Israel condemn a vast number of refugees to misery; not only are many Arabs under occupation condemned to military rule; but also Israel condemns the Arab nations only recently emerging from colonial status to continued impoverishment as military demands take precedence over national development.
All who want to see an end to bloodshed in the Middle East must ensure that any settlement does not contain the seeds of future conflict. Justice requires that the first step towards a settlement must be an Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied in June, 1967. A new world campaign is needed to help bring justice to the long-suffering people of the Middle East."
"The development of the crisis in the Middle East is both dangerous and instructive. For over 20 years Israel has expanded by force of arms. After every stage in this expansion Israel has appealed to “reason” and has suggested “negotiations”. This is the traditional role of the imperial power, because it wishes to consolidate with the least difficulty what it has already taken by violence. Every new conquest becomes the new basis of the proposed negotiation from strength, which ignores the injustice of the previous aggression. The aggression committed by Israel must be condemned, not only because no state has the right to annex foreign territory, but because every expansion is an experiment to discover how much more aggression the world will tolerate.
The refugees who surround Palestine in their hundreds of thousands were described recently by the Washington journalist I.F. Stone as “the moral millstone around the neck of world Jewry.” Many of the refugees are now well into the third decade of their precarious existence in temporary settlements. The tragedy of the people of Palestine is that their country was “given” by a foreign Power to another people for the creation of a new State. The result was that many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made permanently homeless. With every new conflict their number have increased. How much longer is the world willing to endure this spectacle of wanton cruelty? It is abundantly clear that the refugees have every right to the homeland from which they were driven, and the denial of this right is at the heart of the continuing conflict. No people anywhere in the world would accept being expelled en masse from their own country; how can anyone require the people of Palestine to accept a punishment which nobody else would tolerate? A permanent just settlement of the refugees in their homeland is an essential ingredient of any genuine settlement in the Middle East.
We are frequently told that we must sympathize with Israel because of the suffering of the Jews in Europe at the hands of the Nazis. I see in this suggestion no reason to perpetuate any suffering. What Israel is doing today cannot be condoned, and to invoke the horrors of the past to justify those of the present is gross hypocrisy. Not only does Israel condemn a vast number of refugees to misery; not only are many Arabs under occupation condemned to military rule; but also Israel condemns the Arab nations only recently emerging from colonial status to continued impoverishment as military demands take precedence over national development.
All who want to see an end to bloodshed in the Middle East must ensure that any settlement does not contain the seeds of future conflict. Justice requires that the first step towards a settlement must be an Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied in June, 1967. A new world campaign is needed to help bring justice to the long-suffering people of the Middle East."
July 22, 2015
A very subjective history of philosophy. Russell makes it very clear what he thinks of every philosopher mentioned and it's not very hard to see who he likes and who he dislikes.
The first part of the book on Ancient Philosophy I thought was excellent and very fascinating. The variety of thought and ideas here was really incredible and made for very easy and interesting reading throughout. In fact, once I had finished Russell's examination of Plato I decided to read three of Plato's dialogues, all of which I enjoyed. This book starts with Thales and moves all the way to Plotinus, before it continues into the second book, which is on Catholic Philosophy.
The second book isn't nearly as riveting as the first. A lot of this I found to be rather tedious and not as fun to read as the book before it. However, I was inspired to read St. Augustine's Confessions, and I also bought a collection of writings of St. Thomas Aquinas. Although tedious, it definitely had a lot of interesting things to say.
The third and last part is on Modern Philosophy, dealing with the renaissance and up. This was, much like the first book, really fascinating and was relatively interesting to read. There was only one thing that really bugged me in this book and that was the omission of Kierkegaard. One would think that a history of philosophy would at least contain a mention of him, but alas! This book, like the others, also inspired me to dig a little further and I've acquired Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature, Spinoza's Ethics, and finally Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit.
All in all a very fascinating read which flows along nicely, spiced with Russell's wit and opinions. Definitely a book I enjoyed but hardly more than three stars. As a short introduction to every philosopher this certainly does the job.
The first part of the book on Ancient Philosophy I thought was excellent and very fascinating. The variety of thought and ideas here was really incredible and made for very easy and interesting reading throughout. In fact, once I had finished Russell's examination of Plato I decided to read three of Plato's dialogues, all of which I enjoyed. This book starts with Thales and moves all the way to Plotinus, before it continues into the second book, which is on Catholic Philosophy.
The second book isn't nearly as riveting as the first. A lot of this I found to be rather tedious and not as fun to read as the book before it. However, I was inspired to read St. Augustine's Confessions, and I also bought a collection of writings of St. Thomas Aquinas. Although tedious, it definitely had a lot of interesting things to say.
The third and last part is on Modern Philosophy, dealing with the renaissance and up. This was, much like the first book, really fascinating and was relatively interesting to read. There was only one thing that really bugged me in this book and that was the omission of Kierkegaard. One would think that a history of philosophy would at least contain a mention of him, but alas! This book, like the others, also inspired me to dig a little further and I've acquired Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature, Spinoza's Ethics, and finally Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit.
All in all a very fascinating read which flows along nicely, spiced with Russell's wit and opinions. Definitely a book I enjoyed but hardly more than three stars. As a short introduction to every philosopher this certainly does the job.
March 14, 2020
نم��دونم اينكه فلسفه خوندن رو با چنين كتابي شروع كردم ايده ي خوبي بود يا نه..
ولي به هر حال الان كه جلد يك اين اثر رو تموم كردم ميتونم در مجموع بگم كه واسه من تا حدودي انتخاب خوبي بود
البته تا مدتي سراغ جلدهاي بعدي نميرم و كتابايي خارج از حيطه فلسفه ميخونم تا ذهنم خسته نشه..
يكي از ايرادهايي كه به اين اثر گسترده راسل گرفته ميشه اينه كه زمينه وسيعي رو در بر گرفته و حداقل بهتر اينه كه وقتي چنين مجموعه اي نوشته ميشه به قلم نويسندگان مختلف باشه..شخص راسل به اين موضوع اذعان ميكنه ولي به نظر من با اينكه اين ممكنه يه ايراد باشه ولي چيز مهمي نيست..چون من به عنوان خواننده ميدونم دارم نظرات شخص راسل درباره فلان فيلسوف و بهمان فلسفه رو ميخونم و ميدونم كه نبايد به اين نظرها بعنوان مرجع نگاه كنم..
(اين يكي از ايرادهاي ديگه اي هست كه به اين كتاب گرفتند)
مطمئنا بهترين راه براي اشنا شدن با فلسفه و جهان بيني هر فيلسوفي اينه كه كتاب و رساله هاي همون فيلسوف رو بخونيد..مثلا "جمهوري" افلاطون، رساله "اخلاق نيكوماخوس" ارسطو يا "تاملات" ماركوس اورليوس رو به تنهايي مطالعه كنيد ولي اينجوري سالها طول ميكشه تا با كليت همه فلسفه ها اشنا بشيد..
با اينحال من نميدونم كه اصلا ايا ميشه "تاريخ فلسفه غرب" رو يه اثر مرجع به حساب اورد يا نه ولي چيزي كه عيان هست شما با بخش مهمي از ديدگاههاي فلسفي اشنا ميشيد..
راسل فلسفه رو حد وسط الهيات و علم ميدونه..ميگه فلسفه مثل الهيات عبارت از تفكر درباره موضوعاتي كه تاكنون به دست اوردن دانش قطعي درباره شان ميسر نشده باشد و مانند علم به عقل بشر تكيه داره نه به دلايل نقلي، خواه مراد از اين دلايل سنت باشد، خواه وحي و مكاشفه..
حالا ميپرسيم "علم" چيست و "الهيات" چيست؟
راسل هرگونه "دانش قطعي" را علم ميداند و هرگونه "عقيده جزمي" كه از حد دانش قطعي قدم فراتر بگذارد الهيات ميداند.
راسل ميگويد در ميان الهيات و علم برزخي نيز هست نامكشوف براي هر دو و در معرض حمله هر دو جانب، اين برزخ همان فلسفه است.
اثر در برخي بخش ها پيچيده ميشود و اين به غير از پيچيدگي و نيز گنگ و مبهم بودن ان فلسفهِ به خصوص شايد ايراد كار راسل باشد كه نتواسته به صورت ساده بيان كند.
البته كه به ترجمه هاي نجف دريا بندري نميشود ايراد گرفت ولي ميشد كه مثلا بجاي استفاده از واژگان ثقيلي مثل رقيت: بردگي، ارتشا: رشوه خواري، منتزع: منفك و...از معناي ساده تر استفاده ميكرد.
متاسفانه به دليل حجم انبوه مطالب كتاب توضيح مفصلي نميتوانم بنويسم..
كتاب تاريخ فلسفه غرب، جلد اول شامل سه بخش يا سه كتاب است:
كتاب اول؛ فلسفه قديم:
به معرفي فلسفه پيش از سقراط، مذهب باكوسي و كيش اورفئوسي كه در فلسفه فيثاغورس تاثير بسياري داشت و نيز شكل گيري و قدرت گرفتن تمدن يوناني پس از شكست اتن از خشايارشا ميپردازد
كتاب دوم؛ سقراط، افلاطون و ارسطو
اين بخش به معرفي فلسفه سه تن از بزرگان فلسفه ميپردازد. سقراط كتاب يا رساله اي از خود بجاي نگذاشته، در هفتاد سالگي در دادگاهي به اتهام شرك به اعدام محكوم ميشود. افلاطون بر خلاف سقراط ثروتمند بوده و بدون واهمه به تحصيل و اموزش فلسفه ميپرداخته.. مهمترين ايده هايش نظريه مُثُل و نظريه ساخت يك ارمانشهر بر اساس سيستمي متشكل از قوانين خودش است كه اساسش بنا كردن جامعه اي بعنوان يك خانواده كلي و بزرگ است. پس از او ارسطو مشهورترين فيلسوف دنياي باستان بوده.
كتاب سوم؛ فلسفه باستاني پس از ارسطو
يونان قدرت خود را از دست داده و روم تبديل به امپراطوري اول دنيا شده..رومي ها در مقابل يوناني ها افرادي نابخرد، بي هنر و به دور از اداب اجتماعي بودند ولي از لحاظ همبستگي سياسي و سلحشوري برتر از انها بودند.فلسفه در اين دوران نزول ميكند با اينحال مكاتب مهمي همچون كلبيان و شكاكان، اپيكوريان، رواقيان و در اخر فلوطين يا نو افلاطونيان پديد امدند..
اگر نظر خودم درباره اين فلسفه ها و فيلسوفان را بخواهم بگويم به صورت كلي كاملا سر خورده شدم..بي شك بسياري از انها افرادي دانشمند بوده اند و به علم و رياضي نيز كمك كرده اند (البته بسياري از انها هم دچار خرافات بوده اند) ولي حتي همانها هم مشكلات بسياري در نظريه هايشان داشته اند. سقراط اعتقاد داشته كه پس از مرگش همنشين خدايان ميشود و به همين دليل در دادگاهش تقاضاي عفو نميكند. او معتقد بوده كه سروش عالم غيبي او را هدايت ميكند و در يك اندرز اخلاقي ميگويد زيان ظلم براي ظالم بيش از مظلوم است. افلاطون ايده ي بسيار عجيبي درباره يوتوپيا ارائه ميدهد كه جداي از عملي نبودنش نشان ميدهد كه چقدر افكارش ديكتاتور منشانه، ضد زن، ضد كودكان، ضد برده ها و جنگ طلبانه بوده است. او نظريه مُثُل را براي حل مسئله لاينحل جهان هستي ارائه ميدهد كه مانند نظريه هاي ساير فيلسوفان چيزي بيشتر از حدس و گمان يا بيان انچه كه دغدغه اش بوده نيست و به بقاي روح اعتقاد داشته..
ارسطو به نظريه مُثُل افلاطون ايراد ميگرفت و در مقابل نظريه كليات و مرد سوم را پيش كشيد. او معتقد است برهان اصلي اثبات وجود خدا برهان "علت نخستين" است بدين معني كه بايد چيزي باشد كه جنبش را پديد مي اورد.
او بر خلاف افلاطون معتقد بود روح بعد از مرگ از بين ميرود. اما يكي از جالبترين نظريه هاي او نظريه "ميانه روي" است. او هر فضيلتي را ح�� وسط افراط و تفريط ميداند كه هر كدام در جاي خود رذيلت اند. شجاعت حد وسط بزدلي و بي پروايي ست، سخاوت حد وسط تبذير و بخل است، عزت نفس حد وسط خودخواهي و خاكساري ست، نكته سنجي حد وسط لودگي و خشكي ست، ازرم حد وسط كمرويي و دريدگي ست..اما ايرادي كه به ان وارد است اين است كه برخي فضيلتها مانند راستگويي حد وسط چيست؟ ارسطو ان را حد وسط لاف زني و فروتني دروغين ميداند كه كاملا مشخص است سفسطه است. ضمنا او بردگان، رعايا، زنان و كودكان را حقير تر از مردان ميشمارد. و به بردگي گرفتن اسرا و طرف مغلوب جنگ را با اين برهان كه طرفي كه جنگ را برده اصولا فضيلت بيشتري داشته تاييد ميكرده.چيزي كه به نظر ميرسد اين است كه او احساس فوق ناسيوناليستي داشته و برده بودن يوناني ها را مجاز نميدانسته. با نظريه مدينه فاضله افلاطون مخالف بوده و معتقد بوده انچه ميان افرادْ مشتركْ باشد كمترين توجه را دريافت خواهد كرد. ضمنا او طراح نظريه قياس در منطق نيز هست كه تاثير بسياري در فلسفه گذاشت. از انجا كه فضاي بيشتري براي نوشتن نيست صرفا نظر شخص خودم را ابراز ميكنم و فكر ميكنم بين تمام اين فلسفه ها و مكاتب كه در اين جلد معرفي شدند "اتوميستها" كه بر خلاف ساير مكاتب به دنبال غايت دنيا نبودند، "سوفسطاييان" كه به نوعي كردارشان خود فلسفه را زير سوال ميبرد و به همين دليل دشمنان زيادي داشتند، اپيكوريان و رواقيان جذاب تر از سايرين بودند.
ولي به هر حال الان كه جلد يك اين اثر رو تموم كردم ميتونم در مجموع بگم كه واسه من تا حدودي انتخاب خوبي بود
البته تا مدتي سراغ جلدهاي بعدي نميرم و كتابايي خارج از حيطه فلسفه ميخونم تا ذهنم خسته نشه..
يكي از ايرادهايي كه به اين اثر گسترده راسل گرفته ميشه اينه كه زمينه وسيعي رو در بر گرفته و حداقل بهتر اينه كه وقتي چنين مجموعه اي نوشته ميشه به قلم نويسندگان مختلف باشه..شخص راسل به اين موضوع اذعان ميكنه ولي به نظر من با اينكه اين ممكنه يه ايراد باشه ولي چيز مهمي نيست..چون من به عنوان خواننده ميدونم دارم نظرات شخص راسل درباره فلان فيلسوف و بهمان فلسفه رو ميخونم و ميدونم كه نبايد به اين نظرها بعنوان مرجع نگاه كنم..
(اين يكي از ايرادهاي ديگه اي هست كه به اين كتاب گرفتند)
مطمئنا بهترين راه براي اشنا شدن با فلسفه و جهان بيني هر فيلسوفي اينه كه كتاب و رساله هاي همون فيلسوف رو بخونيد..مثلا "جمهوري" افلاطون، رساله "اخلاق نيكوماخوس" ارسطو يا "تاملات" ماركوس اورليوس رو به تنهايي مطالعه كنيد ولي اينجوري سالها طول ميكشه تا با كليت همه فلسفه ها اشنا بشيد..
با اينحال من نميدونم كه اصلا ايا ميشه "تاريخ فلسفه غرب" رو يه اثر مرجع به حساب اورد يا نه ولي چيزي كه عيان هست شما با بخش مهمي از ديدگاههاي فلسفي اشنا ميشيد..
راسل فلسفه رو حد وسط الهيات و علم ميدونه..ميگه فلسفه مثل الهيات عبارت از تفكر درباره موضوعاتي كه تاكنون به دست اوردن دانش قطعي درباره شان ميسر نشده باشد و مانند علم به عقل بشر تكيه داره نه به دلايل نقلي، خواه مراد از اين دلايل سنت باشد، خواه وحي و مكاشفه..
حالا ميپرسيم "علم" چيست و "الهيات" چيست؟
راسل هرگونه "دانش قطعي" را علم ميداند و هرگونه "عقيده جزمي" كه از حد دانش قطعي قدم فراتر بگذارد الهيات ميداند.
راسل ميگويد در ميان الهيات و علم برزخي نيز هست نامكشوف براي هر دو و در معرض حمله هر دو جانب، اين برزخ همان فلسفه است.
اثر در برخي بخش ها پيچيده ميشود و اين به غير از پيچيدگي و نيز گنگ و مبهم بودن ان فلسفهِ به خصوص شايد ايراد كار راسل باشد كه نتواسته به صورت ساده بيان كند.
البته كه به ترجمه هاي نجف دريا بندري نميشود ايراد گرفت ولي ميشد كه مثلا بجاي استفاده از واژگان ثقيلي مثل رقيت: بردگي، ارتشا: رشوه خواري، منتزع: منفك و...از معناي ساده تر استفاده ميكرد.
متاسفانه به دليل حجم انبوه مطالب كتاب توضيح مفصلي نميتوانم بنويسم..
كتاب تاريخ فلسفه غرب، جلد اول شامل سه بخش يا سه كتاب است:
كتاب اول؛ فلسفه قديم:
به معرفي فلسفه پيش از سقراط، مذهب باكوسي و كيش اورفئوسي كه در فلسفه فيثاغورس تاثير بسياري داشت و نيز شكل گيري و قدرت گرفتن تمدن يوناني پس از شكست اتن از خشايارشا ميپردازد
كتاب دوم؛ سقراط، افلاطون و ارسطو
اين بخش به معرفي فلسفه سه تن از بزرگان فلسفه ميپردازد. سقراط كتاب يا رساله اي از خود بجاي نگذاشته، در هفتاد سالگي در دادگاهي به اتهام شرك به اعدام محكوم ميشود. افلاطون بر خلاف سقراط ثروتمند بوده و بدون واهمه به تحصيل و اموزش فلسفه ميپرداخته.. مهمترين ايده هايش نظريه مُثُل و نظريه ساخت يك ارمانشهر بر اساس سيستمي متشكل از قوانين خودش است كه اساسش بنا كردن جامعه اي بعنوان يك خانواده كلي و بزرگ است. پس از او ارسطو مشهورترين فيلسوف دنياي باستان بوده.
كتاب سوم؛ فلسفه باستاني پس از ارسطو
يونان قدرت خود را از دست داده و روم تبديل به امپراطوري اول دنيا شده..رومي ها در مقابل يوناني ها افرادي نابخرد، بي هنر و به دور از اداب اجتماعي بودند ولي از لحاظ همبستگي سياسي و سلحشوري برتر از انها بودند.فلسفه در اين دوران نزول ميكند با اينحال مكاتب مهمي همچون كلبيان و شكاكان، اپيكوريان، رواقيان و در اخر فلوطين يا نو افلاطونيان پديد امدند..
اگر نظر خودم درباره اين فلسفه ها و فيلسوفان را بخواهم بگويم به صورت كلي كاملا سر خورده شدم..بي شك بسياري از انها افرادي دانشمند بوده اند و به علم و رياضي نيز كمك كرده اند (البته بسياري از انها هم دچار خرافات بوده اند) ولي حتي همانها هم مشكلات بسياري در نظريه هايشان داشته اند. سقراط اعتقاد داشته كه پس از مرگش همنشين خدايان ميشود و به همين دليل در دادگاهش تقاضاي عفو نميكند. او معتقد بوده كه سروش عالم غيبي او را هدايت ميكند و در يك اندرز اخلاقي ميگويد زيان ظلم براي ظالم بيش از مظلوم است. افلاطون ايده ي بسيار عجيبي درباره يوتوپيا ارائه ميدهد كه جداي از عملي نبودنش نشان ميدهد كه چقدر افكارش ديكتاتور منشانه، ضد زن، ضد كودكان، ضد برده ها و جنگ طلبانه بوده است. او نظريه مُثُل را براي حل مسئله لاينحل جهان هستي ارائه ميدهد كه مانند نظريه هاي ساير فيلسوفان چيزي بيشتر از حدس و گمان يا بيان انچه كه دغدغه اش بوده نيست و به بقاي روح اعتقاد داشته..
ارسطو به نظريه مُثُل افلاطون ايراد ميگرفت و در مقابل نظريه كليات و مرد سوم را پيش كشيد. او معتقد است برهان اصلي اثبات وجود خدا برهان "علت نخستين" است بدين معني كه بايد چيزي باشد كه جنبش را پديد مي اورد.
او بر خلاف افلاطون معتقد بود روح بعد از مرگ از بين ميرود. اما يكي از جالبترين نظريه هاي او نظريه "ميانه روي" است. او هر فضيلتي را ح�� وسط افراط و تفريط ميداند كه هر كدام در جاي خود رذيلت اند. شجاعت حد وسط بزدلي و بي پروايي ست، سخاوت حد وسط تبذير و بخل است، عزت نفس حد وسط خودخواهي و خاكساري ست، نكته سنجي حد وسط لودگي و خشكي ست، ازرم حد وسط كمرويي و دريدگي ست..اما ايرادي كه به ان وارد است اين است كه برخي فضيلتها مانند راستگويي حد وسط چيست؟ ارسطو ان را حد وسط لاف زني و فروتني دروغين ميداند كه كاملا مشخص است سفسطه است. ضمنا او بردگان، رعايا، زنان و كودكان را حقير تر از مردان ميشمارد. و به بردگي گرفتن اسرا و طرف مغلوب جنگ را با اين برهان كه طرفي كه جنگ را برده اصولا فضيلت بيشتري داشته تاييد ميكرده.چيزي كه به نظر ميرسد اين است كه او احساس فوق ناسيوناليستي داشته و برده بودن يوناني ها را مجاز نميدانسته. با نظريه مدينه فاضله افلاطون مخالف بوده و معتقد بوده انچه ميان افرادْ مشتركْ باشد كمترين توجه را دريافت خواهد كرد. ضمنا او طراح نظريه قياس در منطق نيز هست كه تاثير بسياري در فلسفه گذاشت. از انجا كه فضاي بيشتري براي نوشتن نيست صرفا نظر شخص خودم را ابراز ميكنم و فكر ميكنم بين تمام اين فلسفه ها و مكاتب كه در اين جلد معرفي شدند "اتوميستها" كه بر خلاف ساير مكاتب به دنبال غايت دنيا نبودند، "سوفسطاييان" كه به نوعي كردارشان خود فلسفه را زير سوال ميبرد و به همين دليل دشمنان زيادي داشتند، اپيكوريان و رواقيان جذاب تر از سايرين بودند.
October 19, 2023
Koliko sam ranije manje vrednovao ovu knjigu - neverovatno. Čini mi se da je to bila posledica studiranja filozofije i učenja istorije filozofije 4 godine, odnosno osam semestara, a on se lik našao da sve spakuje u jednu knjigu. Doduše, u pitanju je jedna dugačka knjiga ali opeet samo jedna, jbg.
Isto toliko koliko sam ranije imao manje razumevanja za ovu knjigu, sad mi prija da čitam poglavlja o Plotinu npr. ili o Bajronu. Otkud Bajrona među zvanične filozofe?
Inače, jedan profesor na Filozofskom fakultetu mi je jednom dao jako dobar savet: "Čuvajte se čitanja istorija filozofije koje su pisali veliki filozofi, jer oni ih uvek provlače kroz svoje vizure i razračunavaju se nepošteno sa onima čija mišljenja im ne odgovaraju." Savet je odličan, ali mislim da se više odnosi na na primer Hegelovu Istoriju filozofije nego na ovu "malu" pristrasnu istoriju filozofije Bertranda Rasela.
Izdanje Izdavačko-štamparskog preduzeća "Kosmos" (ne taj Kosmos, drugi Kosmos, lepši i stariji), čuvena edicija "Karijatide" iz 1962. godine - preporuka svima; šta god iz te edicije da uzmete biće vam zanimljivo.
Isto toliko koliko sam ranije imao manje razumevanja za ovu knjigu, sad mi prija da čitam poglavlja o Plotinu npr. ili o Bajronu. Otkud Bajrona među zvanične filozofe?
Inače, jedan profesor na Filozofskom fakultetu mi je jednom dao jako dobar savet: "Čuvajte se čitanja istorija filozofije koje su pisali veliki filozofi, jer oni ih uvek provlače kroz svoje vizure i razračunavaju se nepošteno sa onima čija mišljenja im ne odgovaraju." Savet je odličan, ali mislim da se više odnosi na na primer Hegelovu Istoriju filozofije nego na ovu "malu" pristrasnu istoriju filozofije Bertranda Rasela.
Izdanje Izdavačko-štamparskog preduzeća "Kosmos" (ne taj Kosmos, drugi Kosmos, lepši i stariji), čuvena edicija "Karijatide" iz 1962. godine - preporuka svima; šta god iz te edicije da uzmete biće vam zanimljivo.
December 25, 2019
I know I'm supposed to start with Greeks. I've heard Bertrand Russell is biased. And for no apparent reason I skipped ancient and catholic philosophy. So having read only modern philosophy(about 400 pages) , I can say that Bertrand Russell is pretty concise, accessible and definitely based; and he's not trying to hide it. Neitzsches chapter does seem like a hard roasting. I'll probably pick Gottlieb's Dream of Reason for Greek philosophy, and later Anthony Kenny's book for another reference when I decide to do this again. Either way, I've found good amount of original texts to read further.
October 7, 2019
FINALLY!
As my first philosophy book, this sure was heavy; however, it was extremely interesting and thought-provoking as well!
As my first philosophy book, this sure was heavy; however, it was extremely interesting and thought-provoking as well!
June 2, 2019
O melhor do livro é sem dúvida o derrube de vários mitos e ideias criadas no imaginário ocidental a propósito da extensa linha temporal de filósofos que liga Sócrates a Russell. Pode-se dizer que se aprende imenso, que no final da leitura se vê a produção de conhecimento, e os seus principais responsáveis, a uma luz totalmente distinta. Apesar de sabermos que temos de colocar algum travão nas impressões imediata, já que Russell não se coíbe nunca de ser crítico, mesmo quando está a falar de milhares de anos atrás, em contextos sociais completamente opostos àquele em que hoje vivemos. Leia-se com calma, sempre com o filtro crítico ativo, preparado para por vezes ter de dar a volta a cabeça tentando compreender o que Russell nos quer dizer, mas acima de tudo leia-se pelo prazer de viajar pela história das ideias.
Para se poder criar um bom crivo crítico desta leitura é preciso começar por compreender a bagagem de Russell, alguém que começou por estudar matemática e filosofia naquilo que mais une ambas as disciplinas, a lógica, a partir do que viria lançar a corrente de pensamento que ficou conhecida como: filosofia analítica. Como se depreenderá, este cenário faz de Russell um racionalista, e é exatamente por isso que precisamos de ler todo o livro com algumas cautelas. O racionalismo funciona a partir de propriedades imensamente relevantes no que toca à criação de conhecimento, assente numa base em que a argumentação lógica é o cerne, contudo padece de alguns problemas. Desde logo, os racionalistas assumem que tudo tem de ter uma lógica, que tudo tem de ter uma causa, que o conhecimento se constrói à imagem de uma equação matemática que tudo pode explicar. Na verdade, existem domínios em que esta forma de inquirir faz sentido, contudo não é passível de se poder aplicar a toda a realidade, menos ainda quando entramos na órbita da definição do ser-humano.
Por isso, não é de estranhar que Russell ataque praticamente todos os filósofos que lista ao longo das várias centenas de páginas. Russell realiza a sua História como arguente de provas, estando sempre à procura nas teses dos outros de problemas e defeitos, falhando demasiadas vezes no enaltecimento dos seus feitos e contributos, agravando as acusações realizadas pelo olhar totalmente racional que usa. Ou seja, a sua filosofia analítica não comporta espaço para uma análise contextualizada pelo tempo em que as ideias foram produzidas, interessado apenas no como se comportam essas ideias quando passadas pelo filtro da lógica atual. Deste modo Russell começa logo por atacar fortemente Sócrates, seguido de Platão, e até mesmo Aristóteles que diz admirar, e a quem tece alguns dos maiores elogios, acaba bastante mal-tratado. Por vezes, é preciso dar alguma razão a Russell, a "República" de Platão é realmente um manifesto em defesa do autoritarismo, mas daí a dizer que Sócrates provavelmente nunca existiu e pode ter sido inventado por Platão... Noutro campo, e graças à sua veia crítica, é interessante ver como desmonta os mitos de Esparta, nomeadamente o seu criador Plutarco.
Repare-se também como Russell imbuído do seu espírito lógico descarta totalmente Seneca, numa única linha, simplesmente porque este foi imensamente rico, o que para Russell choca totalmente com os valores professados. Adianto que me deixei convencer alguns dias por esta abordagem, mas refletindo sobre alguns dos personagens mais ricos da nossa contemporaneidade como Warren Buffet ou Bill Gates, podemos ver como o facto de ser rico não é incompatível com os valores estóicos. O problema dos sistemas estritamente lógicos é que não admitem exceções. Do mesmo modo, ou talvez ainda mais agressivamente, Russell ignora completamente a Fenomenologia, apesar de no entanto nos apresentar nos dois últimos autores, toda a escola do Pragmatismo, ainda que essa sua apresentação sirva apenas para demonstrar o quão errada estava, para Russell.
Repare-se que aquilo que Russell apresenta e aquilo que ignora não é fruto de falta de espaço, Russell chega a dedicar um capítulo a Byron, um poeta. Por isso, na verdade aquilo que Russell faz é montar uma História que vá de encontro à sua mundovisão, e nesse sentido fá-lo com grande qualidade, já que não se limita a trabalhar ideias e conceitos, contextualiza, nalguns casos de modo muito profuso, com o sentir social e seus impactos políticos. Aliás, é por isso mesmo que cita Byron, pelo impacto que teve no desenvolvimento do romantismo que por sua vez viria a contaminar todo um século intelectual. Mas não deixo de considerar estranho que alguém profundamente ateu, e determinado na defesa do racional lógico, invista tanto tempo do livro à discussão da filosofia católica. Sobre este último ponto, tenho de dizer que é algo que sempre me tinha feito alguma confusão, o modo como a filosofia estava tão carregada de religião, de deuses ou forças universais que tudo explicavam. Russell interessantemente não embarca, antes expõe o problema como um dos maiores da filosofia: paradoxalmente os pensadores mais racionalistas eram quem mais acreditava numa entidade externa, já que ao definirem o universo como um sistema lógico, em que tudo tinha de obedecer a um conjunto de regras perfeitas, matematicamente puras, os tornava reféns de uma entidade superior, a única capaz de gizar tal molde. Seria apenas com Darwin, e a partir do seu evolucionismo que faria surgir a teoria do Big Bang, que os racionalistas se conseguiriam desprender dessa entidade.
O livro é extenso, mas considero que uma parte demasiada grande foi dedicada à pre-história da filosofia e aos seus intervalos, isto porque ao chegar à Filosofia Moderna, final da era medieval, Renascença, Iluminismo e atualidade, teria sido bom dedicar-lhe muito mais espaço. São muito, demasiado curtas, as discussões sobre Descartes, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, James e Dewey e ficaram de fora nomes que mereciam ter sido chamados à discussão, nomeadamente homens da ciência, que como o próprio Russell diz, passou a fazer parte da própria história da filosofia: Galileu, Newton, Einstein. Por outro lado, a História termina em 1945, o que deixa de fora muito do que se germinava nesses anos e viria a ganhar relevo, para além de toda a segunda metade do século XX. Ainda assim, o trabalho realizado por Russell é imensamente detalhado, mais ainda se tivermos em atenção que foi feito sem recurso à internet que hoje a tudo dá acesso imediatamente, e num tempo de segunda guerra mundial.
Deixo um testemunho do próprio Russell sobre os vieses que lhe apontam no livro, que deixou num apontamento na sua autobiografia:
"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. I did my best, but I am not at all sure that I succeeded.
I was sometimes accused by reviewers of writing not a true history but a biased account of the events that I arbitrarily chose to write of. But to my mind, a man without a bias cannot write interesting history – if, indeed, such a man exists. I regard it as mere humbug to pretend to lack of bias. Moreoever, a book, like any other work, should be held together by its point of view. This is why a book made up of essays by various authors is apt to be less interesting as an entity than a book by one man. Since I do not admit that a person without bias exists, I think the best that can be done with a large-scale history is to admit one’s bias and for dissatisfied readers to look for other writers to express an opposite bias. Which bias is nearer to the truth must be left to posterity.” Russell, (1968), "Autobiography", p. 444
Nota: A leitura foi feita entre a edição audio em inglês da Audible e a edição em livro em português da Relógio d'Água. Muitas vezes me vi obrigado a parar o audio, para poder mais tarde retomar a leitura no papel e em maior sossego para confrontar e compreender as ideias.
Publicado no VI:
https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com...
Para se poder criar um bom crivo crítico desta leitura é preciso começar por compreender a bagagem de Russell, alguém que começou por estudar matemática e filosofia naquilo que mais une ambas as disciplinas, a lógica, a partir do que viria lançar a corrente de pensamento que ficou conhecida como: filosofia analítica. Como se depreenderá, este cenário faz de Russell um racionalista, e é exatamente por isso que precisamos de ler todo o livro com algumas cautelas. O racionalismo funciona a partir de propriedades imensamente relevantes no que toca à criação de conhecimento, assente numa base em que a argumentação lógica é o cerne, contudo padece de alguns problemas. Desde logo, os racionalistas assumem que tudo tem de ter uma lógica, que tudo tem de ter uma causa, que o conhecimento se constrói à imagem de uma equação matemática que tudo pode explicar. Na verdade, existem domínios em que esta forma de inquirir faz sentido, contudo não é passível de se poder aplicar a toda a realidade, menos ainda quando entramos na órbita da definição do ser-humano.
Por isso, não é de estranhar que Russell ataque praticamente todos os filósofos que lista ao longo das várias centenas de páginas. Russell realiza a sua História como arguente de provas, estando sempre à procura nas teses dos outros de problemas e defeitos, falhando demasiadas vezes no enaltecimento dos seus feitos e contributos, agravando as acusações realizadas pelo olhar totalmente racional que usa. Ou seja, a sua filosofia analítica não comporta espaço para uma análise contextualizada pelo tempo em que as ideias foram produzidas, interessado apenas no como se comportam essas ideias quando passadas pelo filtro da lógica atual. Deste modo Russell começa logo por atacar fortemente Sócrates, seguido de Platão, e até mesmo Aristóteles que diz admirar, e a quem tece alguns dos maiores elogios, acaba bastante mal-tratado. Por vezes, é preciso dar alguma razão a Russell, a "República" de Platão é realmente um manifesto em defesa do autoritarismo, mas daí a dizer que Sócrates provavelmente nunca existiu e pode ter sido inventado por Platão... Noutro campo, e graças à sua veia crítica, é interessante ver como desmonta os mitos de Esparta, nomeadamente o seu criador Plutarco.
Repare-se também como Russell imbuído do seu espírito lógico descarta totalmente Seneca, numa única linha, simplesmente porque este foi imensamente rico, o que para Russell choca totalmente com os valores professados. Adianto que me deixei convencer alguns dias por esta abordagem, mas refletindo sobre alguns dos personagens mais ricos da nossa contemporaneidade como Warren Buffet ou Bill Gates, podemos ver como o facto de ser rico não é incompatível com os valores estóicos. O problema dos sistemas estritamente lógicos é que não admitem exceções. Do mesmo modo, ou talvez ainda mais agressivamente, Russell ignora completamente a Fenomenologia, apesar de no entanto nos apresentar nos dois últimos autores, toda a escola do Pragmatismo, ainda que essa sua apresentação sirva apenas para demonstrar o quão errada estava, para Russell.
Repare-se que aquilo que Russell apresenta e aquilo que ignora não é fruto de falta de espaço, Russell chega a dedicar um capítulo a Byron, um poeta. Por isso, na verdade aquilo que Russell faz é montar uma História que vá de encontro à sua mundovisão, e nesse sentido fá-lo com grande qualidade, já que não se limita a trabalhar ideias e conceitos, contextualiza, nalguns casos de modo muito profuso, com o sentir social e seus impactos políticos. Aliás, é por isso mesmo que cita Byron, pelo impacto que teve no desenvolvimento do romantismo que por sua vez viria a contaminar todo um século intelectual. Mas não deixo de considerar estranho que alguém profundamente ateu, e determinado na defesa do racional lógico, invista tanto tempo do livro à discussão da filosofia católica. Sobre este último ponto, tenho de dizer que é algo que sempre me tinha feito alguma confusão, o modo como a filosofia estava tão carregada de religião, de deuses ou forças universais que tudo explicavam. Russell interessantemente não embarca, antes expõe o problema como um dos maiores da filosofia: paradoxalmente os pensadores mais racionalistas eram quem mais acreditava numa entidade externa, já que ao definirem o universo como um sistema lógico, em que tudo tinha de obedecer a um conjunto de regras perfeitas, matematicamente puras, os tornava reféns de uma entidade superior, a única capaz de gizar tal molde. Seria apenas com Darwin, e a partir do seu evolucionismo que faria surgir a teoria do Big Bang, que os racionalistas se conseguiriam desprender dessa entidade.
O livro é extenso, mas considero que uma parte demasiada grande foi dedicada à pre-história da filosofia e aos seus intervalos, isto porque ao chegar à Filosofia Moderna, final da era medieval, Renascença, Iluminismo e atualidade, teria sido bom dedicar-lhe muito mais espaço. São muito, demasiado curtas, as discussões sobre Descartes, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, James e Dewey e ficaram de fora nomes que mereciam ter sido chamados à discussão, nomeadamente homens da ciência, que como o próprio Russell diz, passou a fazer parte da própria história da filosofia: Galileu, Newton, Einstein. Por outro lado, a História termina em 1945, o que deixa de fora muito do que se germinava nesses anos e viria a ganhar relevo, para além de toda a segunda metade do século XX. Ainda assim, o trabalho realizado por Russell é imensamente detalhado, mais ainda se tivermos em atenção que foi feito sem recurso à internet que hoje a tudo dá acesso imediatamente, e num tempo de segunda guerra mundial.
Deixo um testemunho do próprio Russell sobre os vieses que lhe apontam no livro, que deixou num apontamento na sua autobiografia:
"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. I did my best, but I am not at all sure that I succeeded.
I was sometimes accused by reviewers of writing not a true history but a biased account of the events that I arbitrarily chose to write of. But to my mind, a man without a bias cannot write interesting history – if, indeed, such a man exists. I regard it as mere humbug to pretend to lack of bias. Moreoever, a book, like any other work, should be held together by its point of view. This is why a book made up of essays by various authors is apt to be less interesting as an entity than a book by one man. Since I do not admit that a person without bias exists, I think the best that can be done with a large-scale history is to admit one’s bias and for dissatisfied readers to look for other writers to express an opposite bias. Which bias is nearer to the truth must be left to posterity.” Russell, (1968), "Autobiography", p. 444
Nota: A leitura foi feita entre a edição audio em inglês da Audible e a edição em livro em português da Relógio d'Água. Muitas vezes me vi obrigado a parar o audio, para poder mais tarde retomar a leitura no papel e em maior sossego para confrontar e compreender as ideias.
Publicado no VI:
https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com...
March 12, 2017
Пуни наслов ове књиге гласи "Историја западне филозофије и њена повезаност са политичким и друштвеним условима од најранијег доба до данас", што већ само по себи прилично расвјетљава шта је то Расел овде покушао да уради. Мало детаљније може да се пронађе у предговору:
"У већини историја филозофије, сваки се филозоф појављује као у вакууму; његово се мишљење приказује издвојено сем, у најбољем случају, у односу на филозофе пре њега. Ја сам управо због тога покушао да, колико ми то истина допушта, представим сваког филозофа као последицу његовог миљеа, као човека у коме су се искристалисале и концентрисале мисли и осећања која су, у неодређеном и дифузном облику, била својствена заједници чији је део био."
Мени се чини да је Расел у овом свом науму у потпуности успио, иако сам потпуни дудук за филозофију и књигу сам, на крају крајева, и узео да ми послужи као неки увод и да неке смјернице шта би могло да буде интересантно за даље истраживање. Прикази почињу са старим Грцима, а завршавају Раселовим савременицима. Укратко су представљене идеје сваког од поменутих филозофа и онда је Расел на њих оставио своје критичке коментаре, тако да ово није "неутрална" књига, већ спада у књиге "са ставом", што ми се јако свиђа, нарочито пошто је Расел занимљив и духовит писац. Ниједан филозоф није прошао без мањег или већег "рибања" (ако се добро сјећам, чини ми се да се најбоље провукао Спиноза), али нигдје у књизи не види се никаква злоба или нешто слично већ искључиво врло коректно изнијета мишљења аутора књиге. Наравно, кад се ствари представљају на овакав начин, увијек постоји реална могућност да се нечији аргументи случајно или намјерно изврну и представе на погрешан начин. Као што сам рекао, немам појма с филозофијом, али сигуран сам да овде то није случај. Ни у једном моменту нисам имао утисак да се аутор намерачио да неког опљуне и био је максимално коректан и објективан чак и у представљању разних хришћанских мислилаца, а мислим да су Раселови ставови о хришћанству познати (или јесу ли???). Поред тога, нисам још чуо да се неко жалио на Расела због необјективности.
Сад ћу да цитирам неколико реченица које су ми се јако свидјеле и које су ме мотивисале да у ближој будућности дам шансу и другим Раселовим списима (искључујући Принципиа Матхематица, јер то не може да се чита):
"За разлику од религије, техника је етички неутрална: она уверава људе да могу да чине чуда, али им не каже каква чуда да чине. У том погледу, она је непотпуна. У пракси, циљеви којима ће се посветити научна вештина углавном зависе од случаја. Људи који стоје на челу великих организација, какве она захтева, могу да је, у датим границама, окрену у правцу који им одговара. Нагон према моћи на тај начин има простор какав никада раније није имао. Филозофије које су биле надахнуте научном техником су филозофије моћи, и оне теже да све оно што није људско сматрају за обичан сиров материјал. О циљевима се више не води рачуна; цени се само вештина поступка. Ово је такође један облик лудила. У данашње време, то је најопаснији облик лудила, против кога здрава филозофија треба да нађе одговарајући противлек."
Затим, посљедње реченице у поглављу о Хегелу:
"Ово је била грешка, и из ове грешке настала је цела импозантна грађевина његовог система. То илуструје једну важну истину, наиме да, што је ваша логика гора, то су интересантније последице које из ње произлазе." :-)
Посљедње реченице о Ничеу (сјајно поглавље, мени иначе омиљено у цијелој књизи):
"Ниче презире свеопшту љубав; ја је осећам као покретачку силу за све оно што желим овом свету. Његови следбеници дочекали су свој час власти, али се можемо надати да ће се он брзо завршити." (књига је писана током другог свјетског рата, па вам је јасно на које сљедбенике мисли).
Иначе, пошто сви обожавају Ничеа, свако ко каже да га не воли (а Расел је то написао) има од мене аутоматски плус.
"У већини историја филозофије, сваки се филозоф појављује као у вакууму; његово се мишљење приказује издвојено сем, у најбољем случају, у односу на филозофе пре њега. Ја сам управо због тога покушао да, колико ми то истина допушта, представим сваког филозофа као последицу његовог миљеа, као човека у коме су се искристалисале и концентрисале мисли и осећања која су, у неодређеном и дифузном облику, била својствена заједници чији је део био."
Мени се чини да је Расел у овом свом науму у потпуности успио, иако сам потпуни дудук за филозофију и књигу сам, на крају крајева, и узео да ми послужи као неки увод и да неке смјернице шта би могло да буде интересантно за даље истраживање. Прикази почињу са старим Грцима, а завршавају Раселовим савременицима. Укратко су представљене идеје сваког од поменутих филозофа и онда је Расел на њих оставио своје критичке коментаре, тако да ово није "неутрална" књига, већ спада у књиге "са ставом", што ми се јако свиђа, нарочито пошто је Расел занимљив и духовит писац. Ниједан филозоф није прошао без мањег или већег "рибања" (ако се добро сјећам, чини ми се да се најбоље провукао Спиноза), али нигдје у књизи не види се никаква злоба или нешто слично већ искључиво врло коректно изнијета мишљења аутора књиге. Наравно, кад се ствари представљају на овакав начин, увијек постоји реална могућност да се нечији аргументи случајно или намјерно изврну и представе на погрешан начин. Као што сам рекао, немам појма с филозофијом, али сигуран сам да овде то није случај. Ни у једном моменту нисам имао утисак да се аутор намерачио да неког опљуне и био је максимално коректан и објективан чак и у представљању разних хришћанских мислилаца, а мислим да су Раселови ставови о хришћанству познати (или јесу ли???). Поред тога, нисам још чуо да се неко жалио на Расела због необјективности.
Сад ћу да цитирам неколико реченица које су ми се јако свидјеле и које су ме мотивисале да у ближој будућности дам шансу и другим Раселовим списима (искључујући Принципиа Матхематица, јер то не може да се чита):
"За разлику од религије, техника је етички неутрална: она уверава људе да могу да чине чуда, али им не каже каква чуда да чине. У том погледу, она је непотпуна. У пракси, циљеви којима ће се посветити научна вештина углавном зависе од случаја. Људи који стоје на челу великих организација, какве она захтева, могу да је, у датим границама, окрену у правцу који им одговара. Нагон према моћи на тај начин има простор какав никада раније није имао. Филозофије које су биле надахнуте научном техником су филозофије моћи, и оне теже да све оно што није људско сматрају за обичан сиров материјал. О циљевима се више не води рачуна; цени се само вештина поступка. Ово је такође један облик лудила. У данашње време, то је најопаснији облик лудила, против кога здрава филозофија треба да нађе одговарајући противлек."
Затим, посљедње реченице у поглављу о Хегелу:
"Ово је била грешка, и из ове грешке настала је цела импозантна грађевина његовог система. То илуструје једну важну истину, наиме да, што је ваша логика гора, то су интересантније последице које из ње произлазе." :-)
Посљедње реченице о Ничеу (сјајно поглавље, мени иначе омиљено у цијелој књизи):
"Ниче презире свеопшту љубав; ја је осећам као покретачку силу за све оно што желим овом свету. Његови следбеници дочекали су свој час власти, али се можемо надати да ће се он брзо завршити." (књига је писана током другог свјетског рата, па вам је јасно на које сљедбенике мисли).
Иначе, пошто сви обожавају Ничеа, свако ко каже да га не воли (а Расел је то написао) има од мене аутоматски плус.
January 30, 2020
Leggetelo! Lungo quanto i fratelli karamazov, ma molto più divertente e avvincente. si chiacchiera sempre un mucchio, ci sono anche qui i figli che uccidono i padri, al "tutto è permesso" di Ivàn si sostituisce il più placido "tutto scorre" di Eraclito, e il grande inquisitore è un uomo con la faccia da satiro e il naso camuso!
August 6, 2017
There are three points I want to make:
1.The author has a very fantastic style of writing. It uses the classic way of writing non-fiction. When you read it, you won't feel you are reading a textbook, because you can know what the author is thinking and that he is sharing his thoughts with you. not just mentioning them when he is talking to himself.
2. The author uses a critical and analytical method of representing the ideas he is going to make. I believe it is a great demonstration of the early analytical philosophy. I love this school of thoughts and I learned more than I could have ever hoped for from this work.
3. This book should not be used by a novice reader of philosophy. If that is the case for you, I strongly suggest that you first read another history of philosophy, and then compliment that by this book. Russell's history of philosophy is more of an "Actually guys... it isn't like that" sort of history. So you should know at least some history of philosophy to know what he is talking about.
1.The author has a very fantastic style of writing. It uses the classic way of writing non-fiction. When you read it, you won't feel you are reading a textbook, because you can know what the author is thinking and that he is sharing his thoughts with you. not just mentioning them when he is talking to himself.
2. The author uses a critical and analytical method of representing the ideas he is going to make. I believe it is a great demonstration of the early analytical philosophy. I love this school of thoughts and I learned more than I could have ever hoped for from this work.
3. This book should not be used by a novice reader of philosophy. If that is the case for you, I strongly suggest that you first read another history of philosophy, and then compliment that by this book. Russell's history of philosophy is more of an "Actually guys... it isn't like that" sort of history. So you should know at least some history of philosophy to know what he is talking about.
July 26, 2018
We are in 1946, Russell is building the chain of ideas that have been pushing civilization to the current state. His erudition is profound but he is biased while selecting thinkers and ideas. And that's what makes this book so good. As a historian, he is using at least three hats as: mathematician, English citizen and philosopher himself. The former is by far the most entertaining and edifying. For example, the mathematician starts boldly picking Pythagoras as the most important thinker ever. Although nuts, Pythagoras wrote the first mathematical proof. "Q.E.D.". And then he goes over the centuries digging up inconsistencies within the thinking frameworks being discussed. This is particularly rewarding if we did our homework and read the books he is discussing. Seems that civilization needs much more of this "curiosity to understand the world" which is all over the place within this book. And Russell shows a consistent path towards progress.
January 15, 2008
Russell's History of Philosophy is a good little introduction to a massive field. His biases will be a problem for those who are aligned with the ones he critiques. This is because he frequently lets his biases cloud his thinking. For example, he writes,
"So little is known of him [Leucippus] that Epicurus (a later follower of Democritus) was thought to have denied his existence all together, and some moderns have revived this theory. There are, however, a number of allusions to him in Aristotle, and it seems incredible that these (which include textual quotations) would have occurred if he had been merely a myth." -Bertrand Russell, The History of Western Philosophy, 1972, p.64
But has made claims like this elsewhere,
"Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about him, so that I am not concerned with the historical question, which is a very difficult one." -Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not A Christian."
The Gospels were written far closer to the life of Jesus than Aristotle was to the time of Leucippus. I could multiply the above with ease - given that the book is over 800 pages. I just chose the one I did since I am a Christian, and his biases stood out especially in his criticisms of Christianity. Most of his critiques against many of the arguments for God's existence would, if you're familiar with the contemporary scene, be whittled away in a matter of minutes. Another person I could defend, and show some obvious blunders by Russell, is Aristotle. But that would take us too far off scope. I should add that he does give a good presentation of Leibniz, though. Of course, the philosophy of Leibniz was his specialty.
Russell states that he purposes to give more of a history than an analysis of the philosophers he discusses. For the most part this is fair, be Russell does seem to read his own views back into the history he is discussing quite a bit.
Russell also writes very well. Reading the book is smooth, and his work is available to the layman. I should add that there is something good about the bias. As I said above, it's not that he has biases that is bad, it's that they affect his work and take away some credibility. But where it is useful to have his bias is that you can get a glimpse into the mind of atheistic thinking. This allows one, especially a religious defender, to better understand and anticipate atheistic thought - even if said thought is outdated. There’s nothing new under the sun.
Russell is a realist about universals, and that's a good thing. :-) He also has some arguments and statements to the effect that immaterial entities exist. Thus this book also serves as fodder to pit atheists against themselves. I'm not a raving Russellian, and so I have the book a respectable three stars. There are better, and far more detailed, history of philosophy series out there (e.g., Routledge's).
"So little is known of him [Leucippus] that Epicurus (a later follower of Democritus) was thought to have denied his existence all together, and some moderns have revived this theory. There are, however, a number of allusions to him in Aristotle, and it seems incredible that these (which include textual quotations) would have occurred if he had been merely a myth." -Bertrand Russell, The History of Western Philosophy, 1972, p.64
But has made claims like this elsewhere,
"Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about him, so that I am not concerned with the historical question, which is a very difficult one." -Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not A Christian."
The Gospels were written far closer to the life of Jesus than Aristotle was to the time of Leucippus. I could multiply the above with ease - given that the book is over 800 pages. I just chose the one I did since I am a Christian, and his biases stood out especially in his criticisms of Christianity. Most of his critiques against many of the arguments for God's existence would, if you're familiar with the contemporary scene, be whittled away in a matter of minutes. Another person I could defend, and show some obvious blunders by Russell, is Aristotle. But that would take us too far off scope. I should add that he does give a good presentation of Leibniz, though. Of course, the philosophy of Leibniz was his specialty.
Russell states that he purposes to give more of a history than an analysis of the philosophers he discusses. For the most part this is fair, be Russell does seem to read his own views back into the history he is discussing quite a bit.
Russell also writes very well. Reading the book is smooth, and his work is available to the layman. I should add that there is something good about the bias. As I said above, it's not that he has biases that is bad, it's that they affect his work and take away some credibility. But where it is useful to have his bias is that you can get a glimpse into the mind of atheistic thinking. This allows one, especially a religious defender, to better understand and anticipate atheistic thought - even if said thought is outdated. There’s nothing new under the sun.
Russell is a realist about universals, and that's a good thing. :-) He also has some arguments and statements to the effect that immaterial entities exist. Thus this book also serves as fodder to pit atheists against themselves. I'm not a raving Russellian, and so I have the book a respectable three stars. There are better, and far more detailed, history of philosophy series out there (e.g., Routledge's).
February 1, 2018
In 1945 Bertrand Russell, a British philosopher and logician, published an amazing and impressive (if not in quality, at least in size) tome: A History of Western Philosophy. The book covers the entire period of the pre-Socratics up to Russell's own time, dealing with all the important philosophers in three volumes, spanning more than 750 pages.
Russell's objective is to explain how the entire history of Western philosophy is one of a recurring battle between "[philosophers] who wished to tighten social bonds and those who wished to relax them" (p. 9). This has been a struggle between people seeking the oppression of society and consequently the flourishing of 'heroes' and/or 'nobility' and people seeking to liberate society and let individual human beings flourish. According to Russell, the history of philosophy is a warzone between dogmatists and libertarians.
Russell doesn't take sides in the conflict, though. It is worth quoting his view at length, since it is the most concise and strongest advocacy of liberalism (philosophical, as well as political) that I know. He admits:
"It is clear that each party to this dispute - as to all that persist through long periods of time - is partly right and partly wrong. Social cohesion is a necessity, and mankind has never yet succeeded in enforcing cohesion by merely rational arguments. Every community is exposed to two opposite dangers, ossification through too much discipline and reverence for tradition, on the one hand; on the other hand, dissolution, or subjection to foreign conquest, through the growth of an individualism and personal independence that makes co-operation impossible. In general, important civilizations start with a rigid and superstitious system, gradually relaxed, and leading at a certain stage, to a period of brilliant genius, while the good of the old tradition remains and the evil inherent in its dissolution has not yet developed. But as the evil unfolds, it leads to anarchy, thence, inevitably, to a new tyranny, producing a new synthesis secured by a new system of dogma. The doctrine of liberalism is an attempt to escape from this endless oscillation. The essence of liberalism is an attempt to secure a social order not based on irrational dogma, and insuring stability without involving more restraints than are necessary for the preservation of the community. Whether this attempt can succeed only the future can determine."(pp. 9-10)
The above quotation is - in a nutshell - Russell's book. The book itself is split into three volumes. In Volume 1, Russell deals with Greek philosophy, up to and including the times of the Roman Empire. He explains how with Plato Greek philosophy shifted from a search to comprehend and order Nature (hence the word Cosmos, meaning Order) to turning into one's self to try to contemplate eternal Ideas. With Plato, dogmatism entered philosophy and it hasn't left it ever since. Aristotle, whose philosophy was a reaction to Plato, putting more emphasis on this world (as opposed to Plato's world of perfect Ideas as only Truth), wasn't very helpful as a medicine against dogmatism. First, Aristotle gradually disappeared from the scene, until he was re-discovered in the late Middle Ages. Second, Aristotle built a new dogmatism, putting emphasis on logic, as opposed to (scientific) observation. This explains why science only started to progress when philosophers could throw away Aristotelianism and build their science on new metaphysical systems (starting with René Descartes in the early seventeenth century).
In the second volume, Russell describes how Catholic philosophy developed throughout the Middle Ages. The early Church Fathers based their theology on elements of (Neo)Platonism, and is was only with Thomas Aquinas in the twelfth century that the Platonic elements were traded in for Aristotle's philosophy. Aquinas married Christian theology to Aristotle's world system and logic. Hence, all the Medieval disputes about how many Angels would fit on a pinhead.
In general, Catholic philosophy was dogmatism. It claimed to know it all and stifled all diverging opinions. In the Middle ages, learning was in the hands of the Church and the only interest Schoolmen had in disputing each other was to show their intellectual capabilities. At the time, one had to be able to reason both for and against any position, all the way - of course - adhering to Church doctrines. This mentality - which really more suits a lawyer than a seeker of truth - smothers intellectual growth, and it was only in the Renaissance - when Stoic and Platonic texts entered Europe again (via Arabic translations) - that new insights started to develop. Albeit only in free City States (such as in Italy and Holland).
The modern period in philosophy starts with Descartes, who was the first philosopher to erect a whole new system of metaphysics and who paved the way for a new way of thinking. The trouble with Descartes was that he was a radical subjectivist. Cogito ergo sum; I think therefore I am. The only clear and distinct knowledge is that I exist as a thinking thing; all the rest of certain knowledge is based on the existence of a perfect, hence good God - who, of course, wouldn't deceive us.
The English tradition of empiricism, as opposed to the Cartesian, rationalistic tradition, started with John Locke, who tried to build a system of objective true knowledge on his analysis of how we human beings perceive the world and form impressions and ideas. This empirical tradition was updated by David Hume, who made empiricism consistent, and consequently fell into radical skepticism. True knowledge, besides algebra and geometry, doesn't exist, according to this line of thought. All supposed knowledge is based on induction and causation; causation being nothing more than association and induction being nothing more than making universal (i.e. infinite) claims based on finite datasets. Hence, true knowledge doesn't exist.
Immanuel Kant tried to dissolve the impasse by dividing the world up in the phenomenal world - the world that we perceive with our sensual apparatus - and the real world - the world as it is in itself and which is unaccessible to us. According to Kant, Descartes was right in claiming that we can know truth about the world we perceive; yet Hume was right in claiming that we cannot know anything true about the real world. Our mental faculties continuously order the input from our senses and by doing this, these faculties constitute the world. Yet, it is not the real world. The real, un-knowable world contains God, immortality and free will. How convenient.
After Kant, the problem of dogmatism and liberalism again arose. In Germany, Fichte, Hegel and their followers fell into radical subjectivism - even going so far as making absurd claims as the self, or the Ego is the only thing that exists. In other words, I am the World. In Hegel, the World was considered to be the Whole, or the Absolute. Every part of the world is - by definition - incomplete without its relation to the world as a Whole. It is not hard to see how these philosophical tendencies, combined with Rousseau's notions of the 'general will' and 'the Sovereign state', would lead to the ideology of Nationalism and hence to totalitarianism.
Rousseau is important in another way, though. Up to Rousseau, all (or most) philosophers tried to build systems based on rationality. Rousseau saw Reason as a corrupting force and consequently started to idealize natural man. The savage Indian was more human than his fellow corrupted Frenchmen. This was the starting sign for romanticism, in which sensibility and emotionality were glorified. Science, technology and economics corrupt human morality, in setting humans up to fight eachother for possession of property. In nature, at least according to Rousseau, human beings were peaceful and frivolous: as long as our bellies are full and our sexual appetites are whetted, nothing bad happened. Russell sees Rousseau as the turning point in modern philosophy: after Rousseau Reason was discredited and this led to the proliferation of absurd and dangerous ideologies, disguised as philosophy. In this, Rousseau is the predecessor of Nietzsche, who raised the notion of 'Will to Power' to unsurpassed heights. To see Russell dismantle Nietzsche as a pathetic, neurotic failure who dreamt of being a military genius but in reality was a sickly and empty person is a real pleasure. Nietzsche is the best example of Russell's thesis that philosophers put forward philosophies that they cannot themselves live up. Considering Nietzsche's influence on later ideologies like Nazism, it is important to realize Russell's point. Nietzsche created an imaginary Ubermensch as wishful thinking; Hitler tried to copy the idea and killed millions of peoples. (The same thing can be said about Rousseau, Hegel and Marx regarding Stalin and Mao).
Russell's medicine to the above described battle between dogmatism and libertarianism; between tradition and novelty; between subjectivism and objectivism; between rationalism and empiricism; between mathematics and science (which are all cases of the same recurring theme in different disguises); is his own philosophy of logic/mathematics. With logical analysis we can do away with many (most?) of the millenia old problems in philosophy: they are just cases of bad syntax. The problems that are left should be studied scientifically, meaning we should seek for the truth, using observations and inferences. When we enter the lab, we should leave our preconceived notions at the door. The problem with which much of the history of philosophy is littered, is that philosophers seek to find truth in accordance with their own favourite principles - usually ethical precepts.
Russell's position is much more humble than all these bigheaded philosophers who pretended to be the first one to really have found the truth, only to introduce their own favourite (ethical) positions. He tries to discover truth one piece at a time, using logical analysis and tries to divest his search of any temporal and temperamental bias. Whatever one thinks of this claim (made on the last page, p. 744) I leave for the reader of this review to decide. Since 1945, the year of publication of this book, there has been much progress in philosophy and science and there have been major turning points in the history of ideas; so if Russell has the last word on these issues is to be doubted. Nevertheless, I think if one wants to seriously dismantle Russell's philosophy and his history of ideas, one has to be really clever and versed in science, logic and mathematics - the man certainly was no fraud or amateur. His view also has a much more humane feel than many later philosophies (existentialism, post-structuralism, just to name a few) and philosophers (Sartre and Derrida, to mention the most corrupt ones).
Of course, my above description of Russell's book is much too limited and superficial. The book contains 76 chapters on about as much philosophers. And even more important, Russell connects all these philosophers and their ideas to the cultures and times in which these people lived. What Russell does in The History of Western Philosophy, is to describe the history of ideas in connection with their spatiotemporal context. For Russell, ideas don't exist in a vacuum, and the philosophers who expressed these ideas were as much influenced by their times as vice versa. Because of this, the scope and depth of this book is immense. Hence, it is practically impossible to review this book and do justice to it at the same time.
I can only add that this is definitely one of the most impressive books I have ever read. The only reason why I haven't given it the full 5 stars is the fact that the book is written for a general public, yet someone who doesn't know the ins and outs of the philosophers and their philosophies will have trouble to understand Russell's points throughout the book. Russell is extremely whitty and, at times, cynical. This is lovely, as long as one gets the gist.
Russell's objective is to explain how the entire history of Western philosophy is one of a recurring battle between "[philosophers] who wished to tighten social bonds and those who wished to relax them" (p. 9). This has been a struggle between people seeking the oppression of society and consequently the flourishing of 'heroes' and/or 'nobility' and people seeking to liberate society and let individual human beings flourish. According to Russell, the history of philosophy is a warzone between dogmatists and libertarians.
Russell doesn't take sides in the conflict, though. It is worth quoting his view at length, since it is the most concise and strongest advocacy of liberalism (philosophical, as well as political) that I know. He admits:
"It is clear that each party to this dispute - as to all that persist through long periods of time - is partly right and partly wrong. Social cohesion is a necessity, and mankind has never yet succeeded in enforcing cohesion by merely rational arguments. Every community is exposed to two opposite dangers, ossification through too much discipline and reverence for tradition, on the one hand; on the other hand, dissolution, or subjection to foreign conquest, through the growth of an individualism and personal independence that makes co-operation impossible. In general, important civilizations start with a rigid and superstitious system, gradually relaxed, and leading at a certain stage, to a period of brilliant genius, while the good of the old tradition remains and the evil inherent in its dissolution has not yet developed. But as the evil unfolds, it leads to anarchy, thence, inevitably, to a new tyranny, producing a new synthesis secured by a new system of dogma. The doctrine of liberalism is an attempt to escape from this endless oscillation. The essence of liberalism is an attempt to secure a social order not based on irrational dogma, and insuring stability without involving more restraints than are necessary for the preservation of the community. Whether this attempt can succeed only the future can determine."(pp. 9-10)
The above quotation is - in a nutshell - Russell's book. The book itself is split into three volumes. In Volume 1, Russell deals with Greek philosophy, up to and including the times of the Roman Empire. He explains how with Plato Greek philosophy shifted from a search to comprehend and order Nature (hence the word Cosmos, meaning Order) to turning into one's self to try to contemplate eternal Ideas. With Plato, dogmatism entered philosophy and it hasn't left it ever since. Aristotle, whose philosophy was a reaction to Plato, putting more emphasis on this world (as opposed to Plato's world of perfect Ideas as only Truth), wasn't very helpful as a medicine against dogmatism. First, Aristotle gradually disappeared from the scene, until he was re-discovered in the late Middle Ages. Second, Aristotle built a new dogmatism, putting emphasis on logic, as opposed to (scientific) observation. This explains why science only started to progress when philosophers could throw away Aristotelianism and build their science on new metaphysical systems (starting with René Descartes in the early seventeenth century).
In the second volume, Russell describes how Catholic philosophy developed throughout the Middle Ages. The early Church Fathers based their theology on elements of (Neo)Platonism, and is was only with Thomas Aquinas in the twelfth century that the Platonic elements were traded in for Aristotle's philosophy. Aquinas married Christian theology to Aristotle's world system and logic. Hence, all the Medieval disputes about how many Angels would fit on a pinhead.
In general, Catholic philosophy was dogmatism. It claimed to know it all and stifled all diverging opinions. In the Middle ages, learning was in the hands of the Church and the only interest Schoolmen had in disputing each other was to show their intellectual capabilities. At the time, one had to be able to reason both for and against any position, all the way - of course - adhering to Church doctrines. This mentality - which really more suits a lawyer than a seeker of truth - smothers intellectual growth, and it was only in the Renaissance - when Stoic and Platonic texts entered Europe again (via Arabic translations) - that new insights started to develop. Albeit only in free City States (such as in Italy and Holland).
The modern period in philosophy starts with Descartes, who was the first philosopher to erect a whole new system of metaphysics and who paved the way for a new way of thinking. The trouble with Descartes was that he was a radical subjectivist. Cogito ergo sum; I think therefore I am. The only clear and distinct knowledge is that I exist as a thinking thing; all the rest of certain knowledge is based on the existence of a perfect, hence good God - who, of course, wouldn't deceive us.
The English tradition of empiricism, as opposed to the Cartesian, rationalistic tradition, started with John Locke, who tried to build a system of objective true knowledge on his analysis of how we human beings perceive the world and form impressions and ideas. This empirical tradition was updated by David Hume, who made empiricism consistent, and consequently fell into radical skepticism. True knowledge, besides algebra and geometry, doesn't exist, according to this line of thought. All supposed knowledge is based on induction and causation; causation being nothing more than association and induction being nothing more than making universal (i.e. infinite) claims based on finite datasets. Hence, true knowledge doesn't exist.
Immanuel Kant tried to dissolve the impasse by dividing the world up in the phenomenal world - the world that we perceive with our sensual apparatus - and the real world - the world as it is in itself and which is unaccessible to us. According to Kant, Descartes was right in claiming that we can know truth about the world we perceive; yet Hume was right in claiming that we cannot know anything true about the real world. Our mental faculties continuously order the input from our senses and by doing this, these faculties constitute the world. Yet, it is not the real world. The real, un-knowable world contains God, immortality and free will. How convenient.
After Kant, the problem of dogmatism and liberalism again arose. In Germany, Fichte, Hegel and their followers fell into radical subjectivism - even going so far as making absurd claims as the self, or the Ego is the only thing that exists. In other words, I am the World. In Hegel, the World was considered to be the Whole, or the Absolute. Every part of the world is - by definition - incomplete without its relation to the world as a Whole. It is not hard to see how these philosophical tendencies, combined with Rousseau's notions of the 'general will' and 'the Sovereign state', would lead to the ideology of Nationalism and hence to totalitarianism.
Rousseau is important in another way, though. Up to Rousseau, all (or most) philosophers tried to build systems based on rationality. Rousseau saw Reason as a corrupting force and consequently started to idealize natural man. The savage Indian was more human than his fellow corrupted Frenchmen. This was the starting sign for romanticism, in which sensibility and emotionality were glorified. Science, technology and economics corrupt human morality, in setting humans up to fight eachother for possession of property. In nature, at least according to Rousseau, human beings were peaceful and frivolous: as long as our bellies are full and our sexual appetites are whetted, nothing bad happened. Russell sees Rousseau as the turning point in modern philosophy: after Rousseau Reason was discredited and this led to the proliferation of absurd and dangerous ideologies, disguised as philosophy. In this, Rousseau is the predecessor of Nietzsche, who raised the notion of 'Will to Power' to unsurpassed heights. To see Russell dismantle Nietzsche as a pathetic, neurotic failure who dreamt of being a military genius but in reality was a sickly and empty person is a real pleasure. Nietzsche is the best example of Russell's thesis that philosophers put forward philosophies that they cannot themselves live up. Considering Nietzsche's influence on later ideologies like Nazism, it is important to realize Russell's point. Nietzsche created an imaginary Ubermensch as wishful thinking; Hitler tried to copy the idea and killed millions of peoples. (The same thing can be said about Rousseau, Hegel and Marx regarding Stalin and Mao).
Russell's medicine to the above described battle between dogmatism and libertarianism; between tradition and novelty; between subjectivism and objectivism; between rationalism and empiricism; between mathematics and science (which are all cases of the same recurring theme in different disguises); is his own philosophy of logic/mathematics. With logical analysis we can do away with many (most?) of the millenia old problems in philosophy: they are just cases of bad syntax. The problems that are left should be studied scientifically, meaning we should seek for the truth, using observations and inferences. When we enter the lab, we should leave our preconceived notions at the door. The problem with which much of the history of philosophy is littered, is that philosophers seek to find truth in accordance with their own favourite principles - usually ethical precepts.
Russell's position is much more humble than all these bigheaded philosophers who pretended to be the first one to really have found the truth, only to introduce their own favourite (ethical) positions. He tries to discover truth one piece at a time, using logical analysis and tries to divest his search of any temporal and temperamental bias. Whatever one thinks of this claim (made on the last page, p. 744) I leave for the reader of this review to decide. Since 1945, the year of publication of this book, there has been much progress in philosophy and science and there have been major turning points in the history of ideas; so if Russell has the last word on these issues is to be doubted. Nevertheless, I think if one wants to seriously dismantle Russell's philosophy and his history of ideas, one has to be really clever and versed in science, logic and mathematics - the man certainly was no fraud or amateur. His view also has a much more humane feel than many later philosophies (existentialism, post-structuralism, just to name a few) and philosophers (Sartre and Derrida, to mention the most corrupt ones).
Of course, my above description of Russell's book is much too limited and superficial. The book contains 76 chapters on about as much philosophers. And even more important, Russell connects all these philosophers and their ideas to the cultures and times in which these people lived. What Russell does in The History of Western Philosophy, is to describe the history of ideas in connection with their spatiotemporal context. For Russell, ideas don't exist in a vacuum, and the philosophers who expressed these ideas were as much influenced by their times as vice versa. Because of this, the scope and depth of this book is immense. Hence, it is practically impossible to review this book and do justice to it at the same time.
I can only add that this is definitely one of the most impressive books I have ever read. The only reason why I haven't given it the full 5 stars is the fact that the book is written for a general public, yet someone who doesn't know the ins and outs of the philosophers and their philosophies will have trouble to understand Russell's points throughout the book. Russell is extremely whitty and, at times, cynical. This is lovely, as long as one gets the gist.
February 9, 2021
برتراند راسل فیلسوف تحلیلی انگلیسی،ریاضیدان و منتقد اجتماعی بود .راسل می گوید:
"به عنوان یک فیلسوف، اگر بخواهم برای شنوندههای فلسفی محض سخن بگویم باید بگویم که خود را یک ندانم گرا توصیف میکنم چرا که فکر نمیکنم برهانی قاطع وجود داشته باشد که کسی بتواند اثبات کند که خدایی وجود ندارد."
به تصریح او " پرسش اساسی فلسفه دین این نیست که آیا چیزی به نام خداوند وجود دارد یا نه، بلکه این است که آیا تعریف خداوند مصداق و نمونهای دارد یا خیر."
وی همچنین گفته:"اگر انسان را معجونی از فرشته و حیوان بدانیم حقّاً دربارهٔ حیوان بی انصافی کردهایم پس چه بهتر است که او را - ترکیبی از فرشته و شیطان بدانیم."
وی برای اندیشه حد و مرزی قایل نیست و بدون توقف همه چیز را از دم تیغ نقد می گذراند. در جایی گفته:
"انسانها بیش از هر چیز دیگر، از اندیشیدن وحشت دارند، بیش از فقر، حتی بیش از مرگ. «اندیشه» انقلاب میکند، از تخت به زیر میکشد و نابود میسازد. امتیازات دروغین، سنن و عرف جوامع، و عادات راحت طلبانهٔ انسانها را، بدون ذرهای رحم، از دم تیغ میگذراند. هیچ قانونی را به رسمیت نمیشناسد؛ آنارشیست است. مراجع قانونی را به پشیزی نمیانگارد و بر خرد کهن نیز وقعی نمینهد. اندیشه به سادگی در گودال جهنم مینگرد و هراسی او را فرا نمیگیرد. بشر، لکه کوچکی مغروق در ژرفای بی پایانی از سکوت است؛ اندیشه این را میبیند و با این حال، غرورمندانه ��ود را به نمایش میگذارد، گویی ارباب کائنات است. «اندیشه» چالاک، آزاد و عظیم است، یگانه روشنایی این جهان و بزرگترین مایه فخر بشر."
-------
راسل در بیوگرافی اش گفته
سه شوق ساده ، ولی قاهر و نیرومند ، بر زندگی من فرمان رانده اند
یکی سودای عشق ، یکی طلب دانش و دیگر احساسی تحمل ناپذیر از شفقت و همدردی با آلام بشری .
-------
و اما بررسی گزیده ای ازمقدمه کتاب فلسفه غرب راسل
راسل می گوید
" فلسفه ، چنان که من از این کلمه در می یابم حد وسط الاهیات و علم است. مانند الاهیات ، عبارت است از تفکر درباره موضوعاتی که تاکنون به دست آوردن دانش قطعی درباره شان میسر نشده است. و مانند علم به عقل بشر تکیه دارد ، نه به دلایل نقلی – خواه ، مراد از دلایل نقلی سنت باشد ، خواه وحی و مکاشفه –
من می گویم هرگونه دانش قطعی علم است ، و هرگونه عقیده جزمی که از حدود دانش قطعی قدم فراتر بگذارد به الاهیات تعلق دارد.
اما میان الاهیات و علم برزخی نیز هست نامکشوف برای هر دو ، و در معرض حمله هر دو جانب ؛ این برزخ همان فلسفه است. " ( تاریخ فلسفه غرب ، برتراند راسل ، ترجمه نجف دریابندری ، مقدمه )
نکاتی را به اختصار مورد اشاره قرار می دهم :
یک ) راسل در اینجا به جای دین (religion) از دین شناسی ( theology ) استفاده کرده است. ( دریابندری این واژه را به الاهیات برگردانده است. ) ما با مسامحه دین شناسی و دین را یکی فرض می کنیم.
دو ) از نظر او علم ، دانش قطعی ( definite knowledge ) است.
سه ) از نظر او دین ، عقیده جزمی ( dogma ) است.
چهار ) از نظر او علم تکیه بر عقل بشری ( human reason ) دارد. ( من به جای "عقل بشری" "استدلال" را بیشتر می پسندم. )
پنج ) از نظر او دین متکی بر سنت ( authority ) است.
شش ) از نظر او فلسفه برزخی میان این دو جهان است.
بنابراین
اولاً راسل دین را از مقوله دانش ( knowledge ) نمی داند.
ثانیاً فلسفه می تواند رنگ دینی یا علمی بگیرد. بدین صورت که
هرگاه فلسفه را به سمت جواب های قطعی از مقوله دانش پیش ببریم با تکیه بر عقل ( = استدلال ) ، در راه فلسفه علمی قدم گذاشته ایم.
هرگاه فلسفه را به سمت مسائلی فراتر از حدود دانش قطعی پیش ببریم با تکیه بر سنت ، قدم در راه فلسفه دینی گذاشته ایم.
به همین مناسبت می توان از فلسفه علمی یا فلسفه دینی سخن گفت.
به واقع تحلیل این است که در دستگاه فکری راسل ، واژگان فلسفه دینی و فلسفه علمی مفاهیمی ابتر و ممتنع نیستند.
تذکر این نکته لازم است که راسل در این مقدمه کوتاه به بحث روش نپرداخته است ؛ روش های علمی کدامند؟ روش های دینی کدامند؟ آیا رو�� فلسفی تلفیقی از این دو است یا خود ، سازی جداگانه می زند؟ و ... .
باید دقیق شد و نگریست که آیا با ورود بحث روش می توان از فلسفه دینی یا فلسفه علمی سخن گفت یا خیر؟
ثالثاً علمی دینی مفهومی ممتنع است. چرا که از نظر راسل :
الف ) یکی از مقوله دانش است و دیگری از مقوله عقیده.
ب ) یکی متکی بر دلیل است و دیگری متکی بر نقل.
ج ) یکی قطعی ست و دیگری جزمی.
* نقل بخشی از بلاگ فلسفه علم احمد پارسایی
"به عنوان یک فیلسوف، اگر بخواهم برای شنوندههای فلسفی محض سخن بگویم باید بگویم که خود را یک ندانم گرا توصیف میکنم چرا که فکر نمیکنم برهانی قاطع وجود داشته باشد که کسی بتواند اثبات کند که خدایی وجود ندارد."
به تصریح او " پرسش اساسی فلسفه دین این نیست که آیا چیزی به نام خداوند وجود دارد یا نه، بلکه این است که آیا تعریف خداوند مصداق و نمونهای دارد یا خیر."
وی همچنین گفته:"اگر انسان را معجونی از فرشته و حیوان بدانیم حقّاً دربارهٔ حیوان بی انصافی کردهایم پس چه بهتر است که او را - ترکیبی از فرشته و شیطان بدانیم."
وی برای اندیشه حد و مرزی قایل نیست و بدون توقف همه چیز را از دم تیغ نقد می گذراند. در جایی گفته:
"انسانها بیش از هر چیز دیگر، از اندیشیدن وحشت دارند، بیش از فقر، حتی بیش از مرگ. «اندیشه» انقلاب میکند، از تخت به زیر میکشد و نابود میسازد. امتیازات دروغین، سنن و عرف جوامع، و عادات راحت طلبانهٔ انسانها را، بدون ذرهای رحم، از دم تیغ میگذراند. هیچ قانونی را به رسمیت نمیشناسد؛ آنارشیست است. مراجع قانونی را به پشیزی نمیانگارد و بر خرد کهن نیز وقعی نمینهد. اندیشه به سادگی در گودال جهنم مینگرد و هراسی او را فرا نمیگیرد. بشر، لکه کوچکی مغروق در ژرفای بی پایانی از سکوت است؛ اندیشه این را میبیند و با این حال، غرورمندانه ��ود را به نمایش میگذارد، گویی ارباب کائنات است. «اندیشه» چالاک، آزاد و عظیم است، یگانه روشنایی این جهان و بزرگترین مایه فخر بشر."
-------
راسل در بیوگرافی اش گفته
سه شوق ساده ، ولی قاهر و نیرومند ، بر زندگی من فرمان رانده اند
یکی سودای عشق ، یکی طلب دانش و دیگر احساسی تحمل ناپذیر از شفقت و همدردی با آلام بشری .
-------
و اما بررسی گزیده ای ازمقدمه کتاب فلسفه غرب راسل
راسل می گوید
" فلسفه ، چنان که من از این کلمه در می یابم حد وسط الاهیات و علم است. مانند الاهیات ، عبارت است از تفکر درباره موضوعاتی که تاکنون به دست آوردن دانش قطعی درباره شان میسر نشده است. و مانند علم به عقل بشر تکیه دارد ، نه به دلایل نقلی – خواه ، مراد از دلایل نقلی سنت باشد ، خواه وحی و مکاشفه –
من می گویم هرگونه دانش قطعی علم است ، و هرگونه عقیده جزمی که از حدود دانش قطعی قدم فراتر بگذارد به الاهیات تعلق دارد.
اما میان الاهیات و علم برزخی نیز هست نامکشوف برای هر دو ، و در معرض حمله هر دو جانب ؛ این برزخ همان فلسفه است. " ( تاریخ فلسفه غرب ، برتراند راسل ، ترجمه نجف دریابندری ، مقدمه )
نکاتی را به اختصار مورد اشاره قرار می دهم :
یک ) راسل در اینجا به جای دین (religion) از دین شناسی ( theology ) استفاده کرده است. ( دریابندری این واژه را به الاهیات برگردانده است. ) ما با مسامحه دین شناسی و دین را یکی فرض می کنیم.
دو ) از نظر او علم ، دانش قطعی ( definite knowledge ) است.
سه ) از نظر او دین ، عقیده جزمی ( dogma ) است.
چهار ) از نظر او علم تکیه بر عقل بشری ( human reason ) دارد. ( من به جای "عقل بشری" "استدلال" را بیشتر می پسندم. )
پنج ) از نظر او دین متکی بر سنت ( authority ) است.
شش ) از نظر او فلسفه برزخی میان این دو جهان است.
بنابراین
اولاً راسل دین را از مقوله دانش ( knowledge ) نمی داند.
ثانیاً فلسفه می تواند رنگ دینی یا علمی بگیرد. بدین صورت که
هرگاه فلسفه را به سمت جواب های قطعی از مقوله دانش پیش ببریم با تکیه بر عقل ( = استدلال ) ، در راه فلسفه علمی قدم گذاشته ایم.
هرگاه فلسفه را به سمت مسائلی فراتر از حدود دانش قطعی پیش ببریم با تکیه بر سنت ، قدم در راه فلسفه دینی گذاشته ایم.
به همین مناسبت می توان از فلسفه علمی یا فلسفه دینی سخن گفت.
به واقع تحلیل این است که در دستگاه فکری راسل ، واژگان فلسفه دینی و فلسفه علمی مفاهیمی ابتر و ممتنع نیستند.
تذکر این نکته لازم است که راسل در این مقدمه کوتاه به بحث روش نپرداخته است ؛ روش های علمی کدامند؟ روش های دینی کدامند؟ آیا رو�� فلسفی تلفیقی از این دو است یا خود ، سازی جداگانه می زند؟ و ... .
باید دقیق شد و نگریست که آیا با ورود بحث روش می توان از فلسفه دینی یا فلسفه علمی سخن گفت یا خیر؟
ثالثاً علمی دینی مفهومی ممتنع است. چرا که از نظر راسل :
الف ) یکی از مقوله دانش است و دیگری از مقوله عقیده.
ب ) یکی متکی بر دلیل است و دیگری متکی بر نقل.
ج ) یکی قطعی ست و دیگری جزمی.
* نقل بخشی از بلاگ فلسفه علم احمد پارسایی
October 8, 2008
This is of course an analytic philosopher's history of western philosophy, which means that Russell presupposes that there is a single rational goal which all philosophers are seeking to reach through collective progress. Unfortunately, philosophy is not mathematics, nor is it science. Russell's account is sometimes troubling, sometimes funny, as he methodically points out every logical error in the Ancient Greeks, the rationalists, the empiricists, etc. The notion of progress as it pertains to philosophy is always problematic. Granted, Russell examines each thinker in their socio-historical perspective, but he fails to give credit to the work and creativity of the thinkers as ends in themselves, not particles of a universal human project. This is not to say that a history of Western philosophy should be all adulation, but it should never be exclusive. Russell is quick to dismiss all religious thinkers as absurd (which isn't that far off the mark), but also treats Nietzsche with supreme cruelty as Nietzsche was a thinker that broke from the Enlightenment tradition and refused to play with numbers. Similarly, Heidegger is a glaringly absent in Russell's account, as he refused to admit that there was any seriousness to Heidegger's thought. This sentiment is more a reflection of philosophy's break between the analytic and the continental modes of thought than it is an honest criticism. This book does have valuable information and it does represent fairly competent historical research. But it should be read always be read as Bertrand Russell's history of Western philosophy, not THE history of Western philosophy
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,443 reviews