chaz wyman wrote:
Russell's history is annoyingly biased. The chapter on American pragmatism is far too short and gets everything wrong. His treatment of 20th century French philosophy is risible. To call it whiggish is something of an understatement. Having said this, he is a very good writer and I'd rather read Russell getting things wrong than a lot of other people getting things right!
All history is annoyingly bias when you don't agree with the historian.
American pragmatism is irrelevant.
French philosophy never took off until after WW2, as Russell wrote his History in 1945, you can hardly expect him to have predicted Derrida, Foucault, and Bourdieu, or the importance of Camus. I suppose being bias is an excuse for not having a time-machine.
Bias is what gives each person the ability to comment. Since you are so interested in French Phil, you might like to think about what Derrida would say on this matter.
To accuse a person of bias, as if that were a problem, is to try to impose your own subjective opinion as objective. Well, get this you are utterly biased.
From my own perspective, I found Russell's approach to Hegel insightful and completely honest. The most worthwhile and accurate analysis that any man is capable of making and still keep his credibility.
Bias is a continuous concept, not discrete. I agree that all histories are biased to a certain extent but my point is that I find Russell's history too skewed to his own interests. Given your comments and the general tone of them, I can see why you would be into Russell!
Chaz Wyman's History of Philosophy...
The Greeks - bit dull but nice food
Medievals - Irrelevant!
Kant - not as good as Hume
Hume - better than Kant
Everything else - Irrelevant!!!
Maybe you can send this off to a publisher. There seems to be demand for brief histories at the moment. With some hard work and a generous text design you might be able to puff it out to 10 pages.