Talk:A History of Western Philosophy

message: there is a problem: was the book unprecise in the post-Cartesian period or in the pre-Cartesian? Information is contradictory
To do:
# Get information from Russell's autobiography (the current information comes from the second volume of Monk's biography).
# Fill out description of book - areas covered, weaknesses (e.g. Kant), etc.
# Reviews and criticisms.
--  ajn</span> (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The review by Smythies is, however, typical of the reaction of others at the time - Monk says Broad was extremely disparaging, for example, despite being otherwise an admirer of Russell, and I've seen other contemporary reviews along the same lines, some from people with no axe to grind.  I'll try to dig out some reviews and opinions by others - Isaiah Berlin's quoted on the back of my copy (and Monk too, a glowing recommendation).  The common criticism of his treatment of Kant, Hegel etc is not that he dismissed them, it's that he misrepresented them - again, I'll try to find sources (Scruton is one, I think).  Born didn't thank Russell for leaving out Husserl and Heidegger, his letter said something along the lines of "I suppose you didn't think it worth including them" (he calls Heidegger's philosophy "disgusting"). --  ajn</span> (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Having looked up the Autobiography, I support the present wording on Born; and would have made the same changes. Thanks. Septentrionalis
Durant had chapters on Croce, Spencer, and Santayana; none on Byron, although he quotes him several times, and has much the same interest in relations between philosophy and culture as Russell. Otherwise the same set of moderns. Finding the omission of Kierkegaard, Heidegger and Husserl odd feels to me like temporal provincialism. (Heidegger was younger than Russell, Husserl the same age as Dewey; so we could leave the passage out, and it would follow from what has already been said.) Septentrionalis 03:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The subtitle's also gone from my Routledge (UK) edition, so I suspect it's an early/late thing (though my edition seems to be a copy of a fairly old printing, judging by the quality of the type).  The Monk quote's from the back cover, if it's also in his biography of BR I wasn't able to find it there.  --  ajn</span> (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Older comments

message: I don't think those quotes add to the encyclopedic nature of the article. I propose deletion.
Brrk.3001 22:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: A recent edit added the following passage to the article:
:"A comparison of  the biases of Bertrand Russell, to the biases of his critics could have great explanatory value.  Russell was definitely biased toward evidence-based thinking free from fear, hope, and prejudice.  This bias he clearly states. "Understanding History", Russell, B. Philosophical Library, NY, 1957 : "if you have an opinion about any matter, it should be based on ascertained facts, not upon hope, or fear, or prejudice."  Russell's actions demonstrated an intellectual courage rarely seen.  His effort to make explicit and share the good ideas of human history is a treasure in our human legacy.  His inquiry free from reverence and distain is continually demonstrated in his works. Compare Russell's bias, action, and works with those of his critics."
I have moved that edit to the talk page, per WP:BRD, since it does not so much present a discussion of Russell's work as make a proposal of what the article should focus on.  Let's "compare Russell's bias, action, and works with those of his critics" here before restoring this one-sided passage. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:CIVIL. If you have any kind of reasonable criticism of the article, please express it calmly and politely. Per WP:NPOV, it is appropriate to mention critical reviews of and opinions about Russell's book; this of course has nothing to do with censorship. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of Biases 

message: I was searching by "The History of Western Philosophy", by W. T. Jones, and was directed to "A History of Western Philosophy", by Bertrand Russell. There's no article about that series of books? Amazon page on "The History of Western Philosophy", by W. T. Jones.
--CesarAKG (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about "The History of Western Philosophy", by W. T. Jones?