The Presocratic Philosophers [pdf]
bard.edu
bard.edu
For a complete book but from its 1957 ed., go eg. to the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/presocraticphilo033229mbp (PDF and EPUB available for download).
PS: This is not my knowledge domain, so above dates are retrieved from theses PDF and related editions assumption is mine.
Of note, his series on Western philosophy properly goes through Islamic and Byzantine philosophy before coming back to Western European philosophy of the Middle Ages, so it’s even more impressive than it sounds that he’s up to Montaigne now.
<https://historyofphilosophy.net/malcolm-schofield-on-the-pre...>
Adamson began his series with the pre-socratics. That episode arc (14 in all) begins here:
<https://historyofphilosophy.net/thales>
That particular episode was first released in January, 2010, over 13 years ago...
And Adamson's own book covering the presocratics (along with other classic philosophy & philosophers) is Classical Philosophy (2014):
<https://global.oup.com/academic/product/classical-philosophy...>
Which is no accident in either case, as their rhetorical and philosophical heritage trace precisely to the pre-Socratic and Socratic traditions that they identify with.
That really woke me up to reading him more critically, at which point I discovered he is mostly just okay, and certainly not great. He is trapped in a peculiar anglo-pseudo-rationalist view and cannot see out of it.
The guy cowrote Principia Mathematica AND won the Nobel prize in literature. He pretty much destroyed Frege's life's work in a witty little personal letter that could've fit on a napkin. He's one of those rare thinkers that did so much that if he only did a tenth of what he actually did he'd still be considered great.
This is a gross exaggeration, and not something that Russell himself would agree with.
----
As I think about acts of integrity and grace, I realise that there is nothing in my knowledge to compare with Frege’s dedication to truth. His entire life’s work was on the verge of completion, much of his work had been ignored to the benefit of men infinitely less capable, his second volume was about to be published, and upon finding that his fundamental assumption was in error, he responded with intellectual pleasure clearly submerging any feelings of personal disappointment. It was almost superhuman and a telling indication of that of which men are capable if their dedication is to creative work and knowledge instead of cruder efforts to dominate and be known. (Quoted in van Heijenoort (1967), 127)
I should say that I don't agree with the OP's opinion that Russell is "not great", but there's no need to exaggerate Russell's importance in order to prove it.
Not to mention that the Nobel Prize in literature isn't awarded for philosophical achievement, so that's largely irrelevant.
Gee, Nietzsche's opinions of almost everyone go well past the libel border, and that's no exaggeration.
Russell's History is a good read, lots of good jokes as usual, but there are much fairer and more accurate histories of philosophy. e.g. I like Copleston's multi-volume History of Philosophy, or reading in the Stanford encyc of philosophy on particular topics/people. https://plato.stanford.edu/
My favourite historical philosophy book is Santayana's Egotism in German Philosophy[0], which covers from Leibniz to the Nazi philosophy - and was written in 1916! Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche etc. Santayana's sense of humour is much more gentle than Russell or Nietzsche's, more a wise twinkle in his eye. For example, Ch.2 The Protestant Heritage begins:
"The German people, according to Fichte and Hegel, are called by the plan of Providence to occupy the supreme place in the history of the universe. A little consideration of this belief will perhaps lead us more surely to the heart of German philosophy than would the usual laborious approach to it through what is called the theory of knowledge."
- comedic genius. He wrote other great historical surveys, e.g. Winds of Doctrine and Character and Opinion in the U.S. When I read him, on Emerson or Nietzsche, say, I'm always amazed how he puts his finger on the crux of the matter so elegantly, and describes so clearly what others can't even see.
[0] https://archive.org/details/egotismingermanp48431gut
(Am a huge fan of both Russell and Nietzsche, they're both among my favourite writers of prose.)
https://archive.org/details/myphilosophicald0000russ/page/21... (must be 'borrowed' to read)
There's a whole other chapter on Wittgenstein, The Impact of Wittgenstein.
https://archive.org/details/myphilosophicald0000russ/page/11...
I'm struggling with your use of the word ''honestly''. I have usually taken Russell at his word, bowing to his widely lauded expertise. When he referred to Rousseau as a lunatic, I was inclined to believe him and never for a moment felt that he was being dishonest. If anything, it forced me to check out Rousseau one more time. Nietzsche never instilled that same sense of awe within me or desire to do further work following up on his own critical targets.
Caveat: https://existentialcomics.com/comic/485 - "If you really want to help the long term future of humanity, you should probably just become a communist like a normal person."
IMO (and I am a professional philosopher), Russell was one of the most important philosophers ever, in a good way. And also extremely important in politics (as everyone knows) and in mathematics (as maybe not so many people know).
I don't say that just because I agree with him. I could list a lot of disagreements, and even places in which I think he totally lost the plot and had a bad influence. But mostly, even when he was wrong, he had an excellent influence on other people, because of the clarity of his thought and his writing.
But Plato (Socrates) is the first we have almost a complete “works” of.
The earlier entries on the Stanford Plato site read less PC to me.
https://web.archive.org/web/20060830025131/http://plato.stan...
https://web.archive.org/web/20060830033815/http://plato.stan...
Civilizations apart, or course.
Well, the common stance before him would remain
"Investigate".
Already Thales is attributed the "Know thyself" (so we start from the beginning); then one may think of Heraclitus (e.g. "Evil witnesses are eyes and ears for men, if they have souls that do not understand their language"). And of course, Pythagoras - the studies "on good and evil" are reported by Aristotle.
The term ["Presocratics"] was coined to highlight a fundamental change in
philosophical inquiries between the philosophers who lived
before Socrates, who were interested in the structure of
nature and cosmos (i.e., the universe, with the
implication that the universe had order to it), and
Socrates and his successors, who were mostly interested in
ethics and politics. The term comes with drawbacks, as
several of the pre-Socratics were highly interested in
ethics and how to live the best life.