Sometimes accused by reviewers of writing not a true history but aīiased account of the events that I arbitrarily chose to write of. I did my best, but I am not at all sure that I succeeded. Is more difficult to fit into this framework. I regarded theĮarly part of my History of Western Philosophy as a history ofĬulture, but in the later parts, where science becomes important, it I had always held, forĮxample, that the subject matter of which Gibbon treats could not beĪdequately treated in a shorter book or several books. That history should be written in the large.
I was pleased to be writing this history because I had always believed Just to add clarity - i'm only interested in the accuracy of the philosophy chapters not the more historical chapters.įrom Bertrand Russell's autobiography, page 444: Is it possible give a high level summary of corrections to the work or is that too big a task?
is it Whiggish - for instance his own area pf interest logical analysis is at the end - does this represent his interpretation of the end of philopsophy). Or is it a more general mood to the work (e.g. So the question is - is there sections of it (chapters) that are particular inaccurate so should be read with a pinch or salt. The reviews section in wikipedia points to the same. Most recently Anthony Kenny noted that it wasn't overburdened by accuracy (but it was a great introduction just to enthuse students) and Peter Adamson in his History of Philosophy podcast noted the same in a brief aside. But I have read in a number of different places that it isn't actually accurate. Not being an expert by any stretch I thought it was very good (informative, accessible, enjoyable etc.). I finished reading A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell a while ago.
0 kommentar(er)
