Is this a good overview of western philosophy? I'm looking to read an overview text before starting with the greeks

A New History of Western Philosophy Anthony Kenny

Kenny

Russell is the Edward Gibbon of philosophy

what does this mean?

They both cater to a specific secular ideology and narrative of history and philosophy that remains popular with the masses despite being wholly discredited.

has analytic philosophy been discredited?

No and I wasn't saying that it is. I'm saying that Russell's understanding of history is faulty.

I never understood the "dark age is a meme" thing. I admit I'm not well-versed in history, but it seems to me like the church did hold back progress. Can you explain to me why I'm wrong?

So what you are trying to say is that Russell downplayed the fact that Christianity was a vital part of Western philosophy? (In fact, Western philosophy was basically theology up to a certain point.)

From what I remember, his review of Saint Augustine was quite favorable.

You have this backwards. If you believe that Christianity held back technological progress you need to provide reasons to believe that is true and you would also need to account for the massive amount of technological innovations seen during the period. Innovations I might add, which can be directly ascribed to the church, like universities.

From an economically utilitarian point of view, the medieval ages were horrible, with the Catholic Church existing in fullest disregard of the quality of life of the peasants it owned.

NO, FOR THE GODDAMN LAST TIME, NO.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>The Story of Philosophy: The Lives and Opinions of the World's Greatest Philosophers
or
>A New History of Western Philosophy
and/or
>Classics of Political and Moral Philosophy
or
>A Short History Of Ethics: A History Of Moral Philosophy From The Homeric Age To The Twentieth Century.
With the:
>On Politics: A History of Political Thought From Herodotus to the Present

Then you get Cambridged Dictionary of Philosophy, and get it digitally--too fucking huge to read. The newer the edition the better.

An assertion is only an assertion and not a reason to believe its true.

Aquinas not Augustine.

Christianity was one of the reasons for the decadence of the later Roman empire.

Oh okay

>NO, FOR THE GODDAMN LAST TIME, NO.
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

why not?

give the goddam reading list now

>read a line from Nietzsche in high school
>makes this unremarkable shitpost
Want to maybe elaborate if you're gonna bother posting such a sentence

>postmodernists
The book came out before any of the pomos did wtf you saying nibba.

I don’t about technological, but social sciences were definitely held back because of the dogmatism present in believing everything should be interpreted through a religious point of view. Plus science is purely based in questioning stuff previously thought as fact. And how can you question god?

>le degeneracy ruined my epic pagan empire
Yawn. Go back to playing videogames you boring fucking idiot.

but you dont have to question god to do science?
you can argue that as long as theres been someone to kill there's been advancement in science that isnt to say that all science is based around the idea of being more equipped than the other, but as one arm of science grows the others will race to catch up in a sense

The Story of Philosophy and The Lessons of History by Will Durant

Agreed. I read it recently, but since it is relatively new, I am wondering about the opinions people had after reading it.

Yes, that's why I specifically mentioned social sciences, not any other field or technological advancement in general. Reason being the Catholic church defined the emotional world, and the social and political airings people had at the time all of it based on their specific interpretation of the divine word, meaning interpreting things differently to that was akin to going against god. Plus Catholicism set the metaphysical rationale for authoritative monarchy to be further consolidated.

He's so good depicting grand lines in ancient philosophy but when it comes to modern philosophy starting from renaissance he becomes a bit subjective and sometimes does shallow analysis when it comes to idealistic philosophers.

John Cottingham's Western Philosophy is very good.

I will have to check it later user, thanks for the recomendarion

>religion that promotes no sex, no drugs, no partys, no fun is responsible for decadence
Go back to r/atheism.

>social sciences, not any other field or technological advancement in general. Reason being the Catholic church defined the emotional world,
What are you even saying? Did the Catholic Church prevent people from complaining?

>Plus Catholicism set the metaphysical rationale for authoritative monarchy to be further consolidated.
You assume monarchies are bad. Kings have existed since ancient Egypt, but surely the past 400 years of enlightenment thinking clearly proves kings are bad. People lived quite fine with Kings.

No.

Russell should've stuck to mathematics where he shined.

>Did the Catholic Church prevent people from complaining?
Yes.
>It's really super duper old and people lived ""fine"" under it, so I'll defend it from the safety and comfort of the secular liberal democracy I live in.
Pathetic.