It took me exactly two weeks to finish Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy. It is quite possibly the longest it's taken me to continuously read a book to completion ever. The fact that the reading was continuous, though, shows evidence of its quality. It isn't exactly beachreading, but it is most certainly enjoyable. Russell is a wonderful writer. He has a very British penchant for the wry comment, and the occasional indulgence in tangent, both of which appeal to me. He makes no claims to straight objective reportage of the history of philosophy and the ideas of philosophers; this is as much a book of critical evaluation as straight history. He definitely lets you know where he stands, though he tries to be rigorously fair. This is bias, but an honest one, and if someone is entitled to his opinions on the subject, it is a giant of 20th century philosophy. I think this is a major part of the book's readability, since it frees him to crack a joke (or at least "jokes") once in a while. Seriously, I cracked up several times, which can't be said for many philosophy overviews. (It also tells you something about my sense of humor, but we won't go into that.)
In addition to its unabashed bias, the book is unequivocally of its time. Much historical, psychological, and scientific work that has been done since the 40s makes some of his statements and arguments obsolete, if not downright false. Writing during the Second World War as he was, he is, of course much concerned with Fascism and Nazism and Soviet Communism, and references to then-current events are sprinkled throughout. However, as I pointed out in a previous post, he seems to have been an eerily prescient man in many ways, so despite being nearly seventy years old, the book doesn't feel worn and dated.
I certainly can't say I didn't learn anything, but if I'm honest, I will say that I didn't understand much of the nitty-gritty philosophic argumentation. I forced myself not to just skip the "boring" parts, and I admirably succeeded, but my eyes glazed over quite a bit, especially during discussions involving formal logic, which has always baffled me. I couldn't really expound on Aristotlean logic or Scholastic ethics, but I think I have a better grasp of the sweep of philosophy and its major players.
I just can't praise A History of Western Philosophy enough and highly recommend it. It is a slog, but well worth the effort.
Finally, I shall leave you with a few random quotes that for whatever reason struck me.
Finite things are defined by their boundaries, physical or logical, that is to say, by what they are not: "all determination is negation."
Russell discussing Spinoza
Night is sublime, day is beautiful; the sea is sublime, the land is beautiful; man is sublime, woman is beautiful; and so on.
Russell about Kant
To formulate any satisfactory modern ethic of human relationships it will be essential to recognize the necessary limitations of men's power over the non-human environment, and the desirable limitations of their power over each other.
Russell
There are two sorts of saints: the saint by nature, and the saint from fear. The saint by nature has a spontaneous love of mankind; he does good because to do so gives him happiness. The saint from fear, on the other hand, like the man who only abstains from theft because of the police, would be wicked if he were not restrained by the thought of hell-fire or his neighbours' vengeance. Nietzsche can only imagine the second sort of saint; he is so full of fear and hatred that spontaneous love of mankind seems to him impossible. He has never conceived of the man who, with all the fearlessness and stubborn pride of the superman, nevertheless does not inflict pain because he has no wish to do so. Does any one suppose that Lincoln acted as he did from fear of hell? Yet to Nietzsche Lincoln is abject, Napoleon magnificent.
Russell on Nietzsche
No comments:
Post a Comment