This alone should tell you something about Russell's unequaled "worst" work - his "history." Try to find any other reputable historian of philosophy who gave such importance to Byron. Russell's history is singularly just about the worst history of philosophy ever written. It disgraces a philosopher who otherwise composed valuable work of his own.
When I hear his summaries and comments of philosophers I have read in depth, it sounds accurate to me as well as including wonderful original insight, context, and criticism. First of all, to have pretenses to objective history is impossible and false. You cannot separate authorship and thinking from subjectivity. Really, Russell is merely allowing himself to be more honest rather than cater to what a history of philosophy should be according to precedence. Hardly a new concept that literary figures can be philosophical, especially when it comes to wisdom philosophy .
@Ray Silva Did you not pay attention as he prefaced his discussion of Byron? Do you have any other reasons for believing that?
This alone should tell you something about Russell's unequaled "worst" work - his "history." Try to find any other reputable historian of philosophy who gave such importance to Byron. Russell's history is singularly just about the worst history of philosophy ever written. It disgraces a philosopher who otherwise composed valuable work of his own.
That's for sharing your garbled mess of an opinion.
Go away ivan.
When I hear his summaries and comments of philosophers I have read in depth, it sounds accurate to me as well as including wonderful original insight, context, and criticism.
First of all, to have pretenses to objective history is impossible and false. You cannot separate authorship and thinking from subjectivity. Really, Russell is merely allowing himself to be more honest rather than cater to what a history of philosophy should be according to precedence.
Hardly a new concept that literary figures can be philosophical, especially when it comes to wisdom philosophy .