Russell the lousy writer?

[thinkren]

In a philosophy class I took some time ago, my prof once made the remark that although Bertrand Russell made enormous contributions to modern philosophy, he is responsible also for a book surveying the history of philosophy that was lousy beyond discription. I've seen the book in question at bookstores and libraries. Having skimmed through it here and there, there doesn't seem much to complain about. I suppose my opinion might change upon a more careful examination of the thick volume, but he seems at the very least a competent, if not thought provoking or dynamically engaging writer. I was wondering if the sentiment of my philosophy prof is shared by anyone else and if so, for what reason?

[slimshady2357]

Hmm, I've only read snipets of The History of Western Philosophy as well, so I can't comment directly on what your prof said. I have read lots of Russell though and in general I think he's a great writer. Easy to read, fluid, usually humourous, insightful, engaging...

I think the problem could be that in the little bits of THWP I have read, his bias seems to creep through. If you keep that in mind as you read it, it would help.

As to his philosophy.... well he certainly was all over the place throughout his life :)

Some things I like, some not so much.... but I think he was always a good read.

Adam

[BillyTK]

I own the book, it is huge, it seems pretty authorative, but can be hard going following some of the arguments at times; but I suspect that's a combination of my nature with the nature of the argument rather than Russell's style particularly. On the other hand, it's no "Sophie's World".

[Gregor]

I'm actually on page 485 of the book right now - and that's just over half way. It is a tome at 800 pages.

It has its pros and cons. On the pro side, it appears to be comprehensive, it includes lots of informative non-philosophical history, and I really find no discernable bias (contrary to slim's post). In fact, I doubt I could be as even handed to religions as he appears to be.

On the cons, he assumes you know already something of the philosophical arguments he skims over (which I don't), his writing style and word choice (written in late 1930's/early 1940's) is not quite as readable as current literature, and it's llloooonnnnggg.

Overall I like it.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Gregor
I'm actually on page 485 of the book right now - and that's just over half way. It is a tome at 800 pages.

It has its pros and cons. On the pro side, it appears to be comprehensive, it includes lots of informative non-philosophical history, and I really find no discernable bias (contrary to slim's post). In fact, I doubt I could be as even handed to religions as he appears to be.

On the cons, he assumes you know already something of the philosophical arguments he skims over (which I don't), his writing style and word choice (written in late 1930's/early 1940's) is not quite as readable as current literature, and it's llloooonnnnggg.

Overall I like it.

Well, like I said, I've only read little bits.

But I was thinking more along the lines of philosophies he doesn't like, rather than religion, though obviously he's not a big fan of organized religion either :)

I'll have to check it out though now, you've got me interested in reading it again :)

Adam

[Krandal]

Gregor

I really find no discernable bias


Thats because you havent read his sections on Rousseau, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche or William James (among others), where his biases become quite clear. (In fact IIRC, in most cases he pretty much admits to them.)