The History of Philosophy by Bertrand Russell - Exceptional chef d'oeuvre

 The History of Philosophy by Bertrand Russell

Exceptional chef d'oeuvre

This was a vast endeavor and I did not grasp much of what is explained inside, concerning for instance mathematics and philosophy, in the last chapter.

Alas, Hegel, William James and quite a few others are still mysteries for this reader.

Still, there are fascinating passages that have reached even this procrastinating thinker.

I was surprised and amused somewhat to find the lines drawn by Bertrand Russell

From Locke to Churchill and Roosevelt.

Starting with Rousseau, continued with Byron, Nietzsche and arriving at Mussolini and Hitler.

I was have expected Montaigne to be included and not Byron.

But the author explains that, although not a philosopher, Byron has had nevertheless a tremendous impact on the spiritual life of the nineteenth century.

Some of the pronouncements, sentences passed by Bertrand Russell are original and contrary to my admittedly limited knowledge of the subject.

"There was no Roman philosophy"

I was particularly interested in a few chapters.

One was the lecture- I understand that the basis of the book was the course that the philosopher had in America- on Nietzsche.

Nietzsche is evaluated as superior to his predecessor Schopenhauer.

Having said that, he is later demolished and harsh words are used, without regret since Nietzsche had used them to destroy Spinoza.

There are elements in Nietzsche that I agree with to a large extent.

I do not feel that the world can be destroyed and it's all right, if only an Ubermensch is born.

But it seems clear to me that there are superior humans and others who kill, throw garbage anywhere, they are violent, destructive and don't care a jot for anything and anyone except themselves.

There are educated and illiterate or functionally illiterate people.

That it is not their fault is another issue.

Nietzsche went mad and some of his ideas are absurd, abominable or both.

His low opinion of women is unacceptable, but explained by Russell.

Nietzsche said about women that they cannot be friends, they are cats, cows and they are there for the comfort of warriors.

One should take the whip when going to women.

Bertrand Russell says:

He knew that nine out of ten women would take the whip from him and so he developed a resentment.

And then these opinions we have reflect who we are much more than anything else.

There are Some spicy elements...

Schopenhauer for instance preached abstinence and stoicism while he enjoyed a lavish lifestyle and big meals.

Once, he pushed a washerwoman down the stairs for a flimsy or no reason.

She was incapacitated and won the case in court, where the professor was told to pay a sum for life.

When the woman died, he just wrote about the end of obligations.

Then there is the despicable character of Rousseau, in opposition with Baruch Spinoza who appears to have been the nicest philosopher of all.

And to end with, here are the sentences scribbled some weeks ago, on the same subject:

In a History of Philosophy by Bertrand Russell that I am currently reading, one chapter every day, there is a note that talks about the two main currents of thinking that can be traced down to Rene Descartes and John Locke.

-              From Rene Descartes via Immanuel Kant we can reach…Marx

-              The empirical school would start with John Locke continue with George Berkeley and have the apotheosis with David Hume

On a side note, Bertrand Russell would have a simple, if sketchy map with liberalism after Kant, that would betray his ideas- that is to say that those who claimed to be liberals would not be recognized by Kant as such.

-              Soft hearted liberals would be Byron- Nietzsche and they would somehow produce Hitler

-              Hard headed liberals include Marx and the result is…Stalin