Just bought this 1000 page monster...

Just bought this 1000 page monster. I've heard good things about it and it can't be any worse than Russell's piece of shit.

Anyone else read it? How does it measure up?

>western philosophy
there aren't even any notable american ones. most important and influental ones are from europe/russia. typical americans cant think outside their borders.

You know that western doesn't mean just America, right?

rekt by

fucking idiot

What's wrong with Russell's?

Good for shaping your language to speak learnedly about things you don't understand.

is copleston better?

what is the equivalent for eastern?

Anthony Kenney has one for eastern philosophy too

Just memein, making wild assertions about history of philosophy books. Haven't read Kenney.

...

>Russell's piece of shit.
What is exactly wrong with his book? I just started the Plato section, should I just drop this?

no
chances are he isn't wrong, just maybe either inproportionate balancing of different eras of philosophy, forgetting some philosophers etc
just because theres a better book out doesnt mean yours is shit

Russell's book is a very narrow reading of Western Philosophy that (largely) aims to map the historical lineage of the Analytic school of thought.

Basically its not Comprehensive / Continental enough

Yes, he is very good. Very, very good. Of course he has around 4500 pages in total so there's that.

You really should only use this as a companion or a guide to original sources. What the fuck is the point of knowing anything Plato or Aristotle said if you don't read it in their context?

Only a thousand pages?
That's pushing it a bit. I will probably just go through the same Copleston again like I did during my studies.

Copleston is the gold standard in English.

Apparently it's extremely biased towards Russell's logical positivist perspective and is dismissive of major philosophers he disagrees with while giving extended treatment to minor philosophers he happened to agree with.

Disclaimer: I haven't read it.

Funny.

Yes, his covering of anything he disagreed with is terrible. The parts on Augustine, Aquinas, Kierkegaard, Hegel, Nee Chan and probably a few more was awful.
It's 800 pages from which I've learned almost nothing from.
Copleston on the other hand is extensive, respectful, clear and tires to actually teach you instead of giving you his opinion on how Augustine was a Catholic because he had mommy issues.