I want to read a history of philosophy, but I hear pic related is shit

I want to read a history of philosophy, but I hear pic related is shit.

What's better? I don't want something that dwells too much on insignificant thinkers.

A new history of philosophy by Kenny I've heard is pretty good although I have not read it myself

>history of philosophy
Don't let STEMspergs systematize.

Reading Russell is equivalent to letting the *nglos colonize your country once more and rape your women.

START

I don't think it's shit but you have to have already a decent grasp of philosophy (common concepts, great philosophers) and a good amount of critical thinking not to be spoiled by Russell's view, so it basically defeats its own purpose.

WITH

It's good. Better than outright starting with the Greeks.

This.

and Hegel's history of philosophy too.

THE

SECONDARY PREPARATORY LITERATURE GIVING YOU OVERVIEW OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY.

Or you will be worse off than when you fucking started I guarantee, fucking autotictacs.

>autotictacs

what did he mean by this?

I finished it 3 days ago and thought it was great albeit it's hard to retain the basic principles of each of the 100 or so philosophers it goes through, but I guess it's a good introduction to where you can see what specifically you are interested in.

I think it gets a lot of heat because some of the history is Sharkey (Russel is not a historian) and he is biased. Can't recommend it enough.

If you're really serious about it and don't mind doing a bunch of reading, you should pick up anthologies or textbooks that cover each major era.
The presocratics
Plato, Aristotle, and the Hellenistic Schools
Ancient philosophy including Roman and church fathers
Scholastic Philosophy
Early Modern
Modern
Existentialism and phenomenology
Modern metaphysics and ontology
Modern political philosophy

Get collections for each of these and you'll have a good overview, but each anthology is probably going to be 1000 or more pages.
Russell is extremely biased and doesn't see many of the faults in his own thinking. When it comes to mathematics and early 20th century metaphysics he's not bad, but outside of that he's pretty shit.

Last two shouldn't be modern, should be 20th century/Contemporary

my diary desu

I've read Anthony Kenny's A New History of Western Philosophy and recently finished the first volume of Frederick Copleston.

I found Kenny to be interesting, easy to read and as complete as a summary can be. It follows a systematic approach: it separates the authors into periods and then, for each period, it presents the advances in logic, metaphysics, epistemology and so on. This makes more evident how each branch of philosophy progressed and how philosophers interacted with each other. Copleston is different: he goes chronologically reviewing in depth author by author, which makes clearer what each of them believed and contributed.

I found that both books complement each other pretty nice. I wouldn't recommend one over the other. Though it depends on how serious you are and how much time and money you have.

I haven't read Russell.

>jump from ancient to scholastic
Its shit

...

it's mostly ghostwritten, though if i remember correctly he did do the outline. people make a big deal about his biases but i didn't find that to be nearly as much of an issue as how flat out mediocre and uninspired it is. i kind of get why it was so popular when it came out, but i doubt very many people finished it given how boring and overlong it is.

Go with Anthony Kenny. It's as readable as Russell's but more accurate and charitable.

Copleston is good too but it's extremely long and will be more difficult (lots of untranslated Greek and Latin)

This man knows which end is up.

A pun on "autodidactics"

Currently reading it. It's pretty well structured and comprehensive considering the massive amount of information it condenses.

I don't think any of the histories are all that useful for actually learning philosophy and they aren't a substitute for reading the primary documents in any way so I don't bother with them anymore.

surely I don't have to read all those fucking books. Isn't there a book or a few books to cover all the Greek stuff?

That's not really a list for philosophy. The only things I would say are really required are the Iliad and Odyssey, and I strongly recommend Edith Hamiltons book.

I'm a philosophy novice and I'm a little over halfway done. I don't think it's bad although perhaps I'm not really in a position to judge. I say give it a read and keep in mind he is not an 'authority'.

The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant is a good one, just quite old and outdated. It's not comprehensive though, it skips a whole lot of thinkers but I found it a satisfying read. In any case, I still found it better than Russell's.

It's a great introductory book, and it's fun to read even if you're not that into philosophy.

This board is full of christian fedoralords who obviously aren't going to say anything nice about Bertrand Russell, regardless of whether or not they've even read him.