history of philosophy books

[SamStone]

What are the best books on the history of western philosophy that you have read?

 

I feel like I have a pretty good grasp and am fairly competent when it comes to the general movements throughout the history of philosophy, but I am looking to find a closer account that still captures the broad scope. I did not major in philosophy in undergrad...so I have never been held accountable by any means when it comes to philosophy's history. So what books or authors are recommendable or a really good place to start strengthening this weakness of mine? 

 

Copleston? Kenny? Gottlieb? Stumpf? Scruton? Jones?

 

I know some of the books are massive 1000+pp books or are mutli-volume sets, so I don't have time to start reading through more than one at a time. Where would you begin?

[NathanKellen]

Copleston is the standard answer, but it's hard to compare to massive sets like that.

[dgswaim]

What are the best books on the history of western philosophy that you have read?

 

I feel like I have a pretty good grasp and am fairly competent when it comes to the general movements throughout the history of philosophy, but I am looking to find a closer account that still captures the broad scope. I did not major in philosophy in undergrad...so I have never been held accountable by any means when it comes to philosophy's history. So what books or authors are recommendable or a really good place to start strengthening this weakness of mine? 

 

Copleston? Kenny? Gottlieb? Stumpf? Scruton? Jones?

 

I know some of the books are massive 1000+pp books or are mutli-volume sets, so I don't have time to start reading through more than one at a time. Where would you begin?

I remember reading Durant's "Story of Philosophy" many moons ago. It's light reading, but very enjoyable. Jaspers is pretty good, I think, on historical topics. Isaiah Berlin has written a lot about the history of philosophy. Stumpf is good for a broad outline of the major conceptual motifs from early modernity through the present. There's also Norman Geisler. 

 

For what it's worth, I really like Berlin as a writer on the history of ideas, personally. He's thorough and insightful, but essayistic, making it easy to digest broad topics. His main fault (if it's a fault) is that he gets distracted by fringe thinkers sometimes.

[Establishment]

How's your knowledge of the history of analytic philosophy? Oftentimes those who say they have a good knowledge of the movements in philosophy don't keep up with what happened with Frege/Moore and onwards.

 

If you're not open to reading primary material, then my suggestion would be to focus on the history of analytic philosophy. Acquiring or even shoring up the specifics of what Russell's, Quine's, or Kripke's account was will be more important for you as an analytic philosophy in being able to understand the sort of talk and references you'll be hearing than shoring up the details of what Plato, Descartes, or Schopenhauer said.

 

So, I'd look at Soames. He's got a two volume set called Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Century, each about 450 pages.

[maxhgns]

Stumpf is awesome (and short-ish), but if you've a decent grasp of the major thinkers in the history of philosophy already, it won't add much to your knowledge.

[SamStone]

Copleston is the standard answer, but it's hard to compare to massive sets like that.

Exactly, looking at all his volumes is too daunting for me at this point. I wish I had time to read through the whole series; but maybe it is not a bad idea just to read the last couple that cover more recent history....

 

How's your knowledge of the history of analytic philosophy? Oftentimes those who say they have a good knowledge of the movements in philosophy don't keep up with what happened with Frege/Moore and onwards.

 

If you're not open to reading primary material, then my suggestion would be to focus on the history of analytic philosophy. Acquiring or even shoring up the specifics of what Russell's, Quine's, or Kripke's account was will be more important for you as an analytic philosophy in being able to understand the sort of talk and references you'll be hearing than shoring up the details of what Plato, Descartes, or Schopenhauer said.

 

So, I'd look at Soames. He's got a two volume set called Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Century, each about 450 pages.

 

Thanks! This is great advice. I do have a somewhat decent idea of 20th century analytic movements, but I think you are right that what I should be looking for is something like Soames' Philosophical Analysis. I hadn't looked at these before and I am really interested...one thing I can't tell: does his account deal much with the historical/social context of the philosophers and the concepts, or does he more deal with the historical development and relationship of the philosophies and concepts alone? I am also now interested in the 5-volume work he is currently working on (though I probably shouldn't start with that). 

 

Stumpf is awesome (and short-ish), but if you've a decent grasp of the major thinkers in the history of philosophy already, it won't add much to your knowledge.

 

Yea, that was my hesitation towards his work. I feel like it would be fun to read, but that I would not be learning so much, but instead re-learning what I had heard before.

 

 

For what it's worth, I really like Berlin as a writer on the history of ideas, personally. He's thorough and insightful, but essayistic, making it easy to digest broad topics. His main fault (if it's a fault) is that he gets distracted by fringe thinkers sometimes.

 

You know, I was about to just order Berlin's work when I first started thinking that I should get a better handle on the history, but then I hesitated because it seems like his work is more focused on the broader intellectual history (rather than specifically philosophical topics). I imagined his work to be closer to Taylor's A Secular Age rather than something like Soames' book. Does that sound correct? Either way, Berlin's books seem interesting and I feel like I'm bound to get to them at some point. 

[dgswaim]

Exactly, looking at all his volumes is too daunting for me at this point. I wish I had time to read through the whole series; but maybe it is not a bad idea just to read the last couple that cover more recent history....

 

 

Thanks! This is great advice. I do have a somewhat decent idea of 20th century analytic movements, but I think you are right that what I should be looking for is something like Soames' Philosophical Analysis. I hadn't looked at these before and I am really interested...one thing I can't tell: does his account deal much with the historical/social context of the philosophers and the concepts, or does he more deal with the historical development and relationship of the philosophies and concepts alone? I am also now interested in the 5-volume work he is currently working on (though I probably shouldn't start with that). 

 

 

Yea, that was my hesitation towards his work. I feel like it would be fun to read, but that I would not be learning so much, but instead re-learning what I had heard before.

 

 

You know, I was about to just order Berlin's work when I first started thinking that I should get a better handle on the history, but then I hesitated because it seems like his work is more focused on the broader intellectual history (rather than specifically philosophical topics). I imagined his work to be closer to Taylor's A Secular Age rather than something like Soames' book. Does that sound correct? Either way, Berlin's books seem interesting and I feel like I'm bound to get to them at some point. 

Closer to Taylor, yes. Berlin is, after all, a historian, not a philosopher proper. He's probably more interesting to read (as a philosopher) after having already familiarized yourself with the "proper" history of philosophy first. Berlin draws upon figures from philosophy, religious thought, literary thought, and political thought and illustrates the broader intellectual landscape that illustrates the history of thought. So I say he's probably be more interesting after getting the historical basics because his work would go on then to show the broader picture in which philosophical thought is embedded. He's also just great fun to read. Lucid and elegant prose.