I know NOTHING about philosophy, should I read this?

>muh feels: the post

Don't you have some Marx and feminism too read?

what does it mean

how do i into redpill

>lift weights
>obey molymeme
>don't read philosophy
>just to be safe, don't read at all
>go to nightclub
>meet girls
>what's up ladies, books are for cunts
>get drink thrown in face
>put that bitch in a headlock
>get arrested
>go to jail
>arm-wrestle for cigarettes
>win b/c get rekt i lifted weights this morning
>get assraped anyways, there's 20 guys there
>tfw hey at least i didn't waste my time reading
>feels good man

No. Just read the philosophers themselves. It won't even take that long.

What's are the major differences between Russell's and Kenny's?
I've seen them both recommended before, but I'm not sure which one I should read first.

Avoid at all cost. Russell wrote possibly the worst history of philosophy ever. If you want something like it, there is no better place to start than History of Philosophy by Fredrick Copleston. It's much longer, but fair, comprehensive and after each volume you can easily read 5-6 most important works mentioned in it.

This is assuming OP wants to read just philosophy for a long time.

Well philosophy is an activity one engages for longer periods of time. Reading Russel and 2 Platos/whatevers won't mean that much.

As you can see, these are the type of retards that are attracted to analytic philsophy
The ones that aren't only straight up autistic anyway

skip it: way too biased

I'll look into those
Thanks

Haha you made a simple grammatical error.

'Star with the Greeks' remains the most legitimate advice you'll ever find on Veeky Forums, all memes aside. Russel won't provide you a general overview, he'll give you his opinions on and interpretations of philosophy.
Meanwhile, every major philosopher is available both in their major works which are often up for torrenting, or they've been anthologised here and there which would also do the trick.

Also Russel was a cunt and hasn't been taken seriously for a long time.

It's not even biased, it's outright wrong. The guy was meant to be an admirer of Locke's but writes
>Some of Locke's opinions are so odd that I cannot see how to make them sound sensible. He says that a man must not have so many plums that they are bound to go bad before he and his family can eat them ; but he may have as much gold and as many diamonds as he can lawfully get, because gold and diamonds do not go bad. It does not occur to him that the man who has the plums might sell them before they go bad.

He's talking about s.46 of the second treatise where we have:
>If he gave away a part to any body else, so that it perished not uselessly in his possession, these he also made use of. And if he also bartered away plums, that would have rotted in a week, for nuts that would last good for his eating a whole year, he did no injury ; he wasted not the common stock ; destroyed no part of the portion of the goods that belonged to others, so long as nothing perished uselessly in his hands. Again, if he would give his nuts for a piece of metal, pleased with its colour ; or exchange his sheep for shells, or wool for a sparkling pebble or a diamond, and keep those by him all his life, he invaded not the right of others ; he might heap as much of these durable things as he pleased ; the exceeding of the bounds of his just property not lying in the largeness of his possession, but the perishing of any thing uselessly in it.

So yes it does occur to Locke to sell the fucking plums, that's the whole point of the fucking section the idea comes from. This is a philosopher Russell was meant to know really well, and he fucked up on something so incredibly basic in describing his work that I have to wonder if he actually read Locke at all.

Copleston's work is the only good answer if you want a good history of philosophy in English.

You should see his parts on Augustine and Aquinas.
Also, I loved when he wrote that Kierkegaard was Catholic in the sequel to his shit history.

I have a better suggestion for someone like you.

amazon.com/How-Stop-Being-Insecure-Relationship-ebook/dp/B00HQNE1RM/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1479898658&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=how to stop being a faggot

It's all just terrible really. You could use it, when knowledgeable about philosophy, as something real easy to critique. A sort of spot the mistake.