Russell is sensibly overrated. Think about any world soccer championship and follow the English press before it: their team is the best and will win it all. Then you don't need to wait for the final because they are usually out of the competition before the semifinals... The insightful English press never remembers and never adjusts, next championship the team is again prognosticated among the favorites to win it all. Russell lacks intellectual finesse and speculative nuance. He writes like a butcher. His remarks are totally unremarkable. There is no depth of thought nor analytical insight, at best a descriptive enumeration of facts selected to provide a counterfeit Russelian context. Russel's history is like an almanac for the masses in which we find out how a philosopher looked like, how well he was dressed or fed, and how he was perceived by his friends or enemies. Any serious thinker would consider that the history of philosophy should follow ideas and directions of thought, not details in people's life. Russel may be one of the greatest British thinkers and philosophers, but this work is very weak...
What you’re saying is that ideas are formed in a vacuum and the subject that created them is immaterial? Or that philosophers are able to separate their intellect from their biography? Nonsense. One’s life has a lot to do with one’s work, be it mathmatics or biology, as any historian knows. And did you not read the title to what you’re reading? It’s “History”, if you want ideas then go to the philosophical texts themselves.
@smkxodnwbwkdns Not only the title-the preface makes very clear that the book is about the historical context of the philosophers and that some serious thinkers receive only brief treatment and some shallow thinkers (whom Russell writes are not really philosophers at all) receive lengthy treatment depending on their historical roles. I also like the claim that there is no analysis, only descriptive enumeration of facts, and the ironic remark that Russell's remarks are unremarkable.
I could not thank you more for this playlist... Im obsessed.
Brilliant series of uploads - I have e the book, but sometimes it is nice to just close your eyes, listen and concentrate. Thank you!
N.
Excellent job. The reader's voice carries the thread with the grace of a seamstress' needle.
The reader is Bertrand Russell himself
@@Insight-Nobody fr?
@@tabassumbintesahazmumu368 No, not fr.
"O sancte Socrates, ora pro nobis!"
Its a gift.
Athenians
Russell is sensibly overrated. Think about any world soccer championship and follow the English press before it: their team is the best and will win it all. Then you don't need to wait for the final because they are usually out of the competition before the semifinals... The insightful English press never remembers and never adjusts, next championship the team is again prognosticated among the favorites to win it all. Russell lacks intellectual finesse and speculative nuance. He writes like a butcher. His remarks are totally unremarkable. There is no depth of thought nor analytical insight, at best a descriptive enumeration of facts selected to provide a counterfeit Russelian context. Russel's history is like an almanac for the masses in which we find out how a philosopher looked like, how well he was dressed or fed, and how he was perceived by his friends or enemies. Any serious thinker would consider that the history of philosophy should follow ideas and directions of thought, not details in people's life. Russel may be one of the greatest British thinkers and philosophers, but this work is very weak...
What you’re saying is that ideas are formed in a vacuum and the subject that created them is immaterial? Or that philosophers are able to separate their intellect from their biography? Nonsense. One’s life has a lot to do with one’s work, be it mathmatics or biology, as any historian knows. And did you not read the title to what you’re reading? It’s “History”, if you want ideas then go to the philosophical texts themselves.
@smkxodnwbwkdns Not only the title-the preface makes very clear that the book is about the historical context of the philosophers and that some serious thinkers receive only brief treatment and some shallow thinkers (whom Russell writes are not really philosophers at all) receive lengthy treatment depending on their historical roles.
I also like the claim that there is no analysis, only descriptive enumeration of facts, and the ironic remark that Russell's remarks are unremarkable.