Leave being wrong about everything to me

But then Gödel came along...

>positivism
>mathematical logicism
>all of his dumbfuck opinions on politics and religion
>his thoughts on language
>le epic teapot meme

You're making yourself dumber.
Sure you get a brief biography of some philosophers.
His book says less about the philosophies than the first section of any one's own Wikipedia article.

It seems as though he offers useful insights and considerations for particular philosophies. I'm going to find a better book but read some sections of his. Not the user you're replying to but I had intended to read it soon.

also
>I was pleased to be writing this history because I had always believed that history should be written in the large. I had always held, for example, that the subject matter of which Gibbon treats could not be adequately treated in a shorter book or several books. I regarded the early part of my History of Western Philosophy as a history of culture, but in the later parts, where science becomes important, it is more difficult to fit into this framework.

>I did my best, but I am not at all sure that I succeeded. I was sometimes accused by reviewers of writing not a true history but a biased account of the events that I arbitrarily chose to write of. But to my mind, a man without a bias cannot write interesting history – if, indeed, such a man exists. I regard it as mere humbug to pretend to lack of bias. Moreoever, a book, like any other work, should be held together by its point of view. This is why a book made up of essays by various authors is apt to be less interesting as an entity than a book by one man. Since I do not admit that a person without bias exists, I think the best that can be done with a large-scale history is to admit one’s bias and for dissatisfied readers to look for other writers to express an opposite bias. Which bias is nearer to the truth must be left to posterity.

Though he claims the forced point-of-view is innate to the task, I'd rather an extremely dry layout of information than some warped tale that aligns to the author's ideology. I think he's just making excuses.

>interpretation of the Bible
>correct
pick one

>le epic teapot meme
This is unironically the only good thing Russel is known for. Not that it was novel or his idea really.

>Parallel to their intense intellectual life, Dora and Bertrand wanted to establish, in practice, a new kind of marriage where instead of fidelity there would be loyalty, where there would be no reason for jealousy, and in which they could talk openly about the sexual adventures each of them had. The gamble was risky, but they took it, and Dora pushed it to its ultimate consequences. Dora, much younger (and sexually more spirited than her husband), put her theoretical convictions into practice and took a young lover, an attractive American journalist, war correspondent, and adventurer named Griffin Barry, who was also open-minded. She was not in love with him, as she was with Bertie, but they went on trips and spent some pleasant times together.

>While Russell was on a speaking tour of the United States (where they ultimately cancelled his contracts because of his “immoral” opinions about sex and matrimony), Dora became pregnant by Barry. When she realized it, she wrote to her husband, telling him the news without much enthusiasm. Since she was a defender of the right to abortion, she asked him if he would prefer her to terminate the pregnancy. The philosopher answered by telegram, saying not to do anything, that they could raise the new little one between the three of them. He recognized, as well, that since he hadn’t been doing “his part,” it was good that another man was doing so, since Dora wanted to have more children. When Griffin Barry found out he was going to be a father, he ran away to Paris like any old seducer, and only returned months later to meet Russell face to face.

>And so Harriet was born, Dora’s third child (after John, the first-born, and Kate, my hostess on this visit). Russell plucked up his courage and initially even recognized the baby girl officially as his own, granting her his famous surname of lords and earls. But at the same time he was growing very close, physically and emotionally, to the children’s governess, Patricia (known as Peter) Spence. While Bertie and Dora carried on their travels and untiring intellectual activity, the marriage now had two phantoms at its side. Perhaps what Bertrand could not abide was his wife’s second pregnancy by the same man. In fact, Dora actually wanted another child with Bertrand, but as he was no longer fulfilling his conjugal duties with her, she became pregnant again by her friend the American journalist. And so Roderick was born. Bertrand, then, felt more comfortable with his new love, Peter, and distanced himself from his wife, perhaps no longer able to maintain in practice his theoretical ideals of sexual freedom within matrimony. This was fine up to a certain point, but it was not possible to overlook the issue of paternity.

Russel hasn't aged well.

He's not all bad, but his History is generally known to be quite awful, though. If you're studying Russell himself it's fine, if you're in it for the actual overview of history - resort to something more sane like Copleston or Kenny. His views on Nietzsche for example are pure unadulterated butthurt and shitflinging caused by lack of understanding.

Wasn't Witty into somewhat similar troubles too? What is it with analitycs and cuckoldry?

What was he wrong about?

>a literal advocate of degeneracy
>cucked himself to the point even he couldn't take it
this is a man who wrote a how to on becoming happy

backstory? i know he pretty much just fucked guys because he couldn't get a gf

he thought snot was brain matter and that flies had 4 legs