[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Home]

Re: whats on the shelf

Fair point about Russell etc. in some senses, it would be wrong to dismiss the entire work on the basis of one chapter. Notice though i didn't say we should totally dismiss the work, but merely that it should be excluded from the hypothetical shelf of  the most important works of philosophy. You might say in a similar way a good novel might not be called 'great' because one aspect of it is unconvincing. [e.g Jane Austen in my opinion]
 
Also I take your point about intellectual orthodoxy etc.but then if Russell hadn't the time to properly read Nietzsche he shouldn't have had a chapter on him. Surely a philosopher shouldn't simply repeat whatever happens to be the accepted opinion of the age on a matter, but suspend judgment until they have made up their own mind. In short I agree that i have no right to dismiss Russell in a few sentences, but then nor did Russell do the same for Nietzsche.
 
D.
N.B i said 'death of socrates' previously when i meant 'last days of socrates'
 

James Alexander Cunningham <0203734C@student.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org



I am frankly gobsmacked. Mitchell wants to totally dismiss THE single volume history of philosophy on the grounds that one chapter totalling not more than 6000 words (approximately 1.4 per cent of the entire work.) is erroneous. I know next to nothing about Nietzsche (and should one of you wish take it upon themselves to educate me, please don't bother) but I am aware that his work suffered from a great deal of misreading in the first half of the last century, and it is only relatively recently that his works have become a respectable subject for study. This is not altogether the fault of the scholars. When one considers the largely undetected perversion of his work by Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche, and his adoption as a totem for fascism, it is hardly surprising that his work should be misread. It is also hardly surprising that Russell's work should reflect the status quo of intellectual opinion at the time. I would certainly not expect anyone to propose a radical re-reading!
of any text in a short essay in a reference work intended for a general audience. Take the chapter on Nietzsche with a pinch of salt, by all means, or take a razor blade to it if you feel that strongly. However, if you wish to excise the History of Western Philosophy from the canon on the basis of thirteen pages then you are at best very, very foolish.




Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml

To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.