Sorry, but no. Aristotle was a superb philosopher, and I say this despite deep disagreements with the traditions he initiated. Furthermore, Russell’s History is perhaps the worst such work ever written by a major figure, and is of little value in trying to understand the history of philosophy. His accounts of philosophers with whom he disagrees are embarrassingly inaccurate and uncharitable, and serve only to delineate the limits of his own thinking. This is not to denigrate his own positive contributions, the complete failure of logicism notwithstanding.
Histories of philosophy written by one person are dangerous things, and not nearly as helpful as one would like them to be, as there is always the human tendency to treat disparate ideas tendentiously in the effort to provide a unified narrative. Russell is an extreme example. Heidegger probably had as deep an understanding of the history of philosophy as anyone who has ever lived, but since his philosophic narrative is so deeply imbedded in his own philosophic project, extracting that narrative becomes as wearying a task as attempting to sit still while watching wildorchid attempt to blossom.
A better approach, I think, is to read different critical accounts of different periods in the history of philosophy by people who are experts in that area–just as you probably wouldn’t want to read a history of the world by one person, but would likely rather read different accounts of different historical periods by different people. Division of labor is important, and since there is a finite amount of energy one can put into any work, trade offs are necessary. A comprehensive view is only approachable, I think, through the eyes/minds of different people, and even then only asymptotically (of course). You get the idea.
What areas interest you most? If you want to start with the pre-Socratics, Barnes’ book is excellent, although not as accessible as, say, Wheelwright’s book.
Since this “Cultural Marxism” is supposed to have something-or-other to do with the New Left of the 1960s, let’s take a closer look at that:
Now, by Og! Whatever all of that might have portended, LSD- inspired “existential revolution” never could have portended the totalitarian collectivist dictatorship that wildorchid so fears!
And so it proved in the event:
So, the New Left on sum and balance was not at all a bad thing for American society and culture; it did no real damage, and at least we got feminism out of it, however indirectly. And now it’s as much a thing of the past as Woodstock, and no threat to anybody or anything anywhere.
This is a good explanation of what Cultural Marxism is. - YouTube
Cultural Marxism does exist. As a society we try to redistribute social power through institutions, the media, and less obviously, changing words to obscure their real meanings and connotations.
Whether or not Cultural Marxism is a good thing or not I don’t know. (Opinions?) But I don’t write of off as a phrase uttered with an obtuse meaning by far right demagogues - it is a real thing.
Ive never really understood what the term cultural marxism was supposed to mean, and now, having read this entire thread, im more confused - although the confusion now has little pockets of coherency. But, since culture and marxism are joined in the same term, I will now do the safe patriotic thing and commit myself to a lifestyle of aculturalism.
As to the claim that “Cultural Marxism” is some sort of active attempt to shape society by changing language–clearly the idea behind that odd video–it is silly. Everyone attempts to shape culture through language, lefties, righties, centrists, people out in the corn field. Some efforts succeed. Some efforts fail.
The claims of the video, like claims of people who pretend that there is some great conspiracy behind “Political Correctness,” are generally nonsense in which someone who wishes to use language to continue to use hateful names to keep various groups subservient is upset that the effort has failed as insulting language is made more taboo in society.
Sure Cultural Marxism exists–as an academic exercise, not as a real life movement that is subverting society.
“In every political society, parties are unavoidable. A difference of interests, real or supposed, is the most natural and fruitful source of them. The great object should be to combat the evil: 1. By establishing a political equality among all. 2. By withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few, to increase the inequality of property, by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches. 3. By the silent operation of laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort. 4. By abstaining from measures which operate differently on different interests, and particularly such as favor one interest at the expence of another. 5. By making one party a check on the other, so far as the existence of parties cannot be prevented, nor their views accommodated. If this is not the language of reason, it is that of republicanism.” – James Madison
“Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual.” --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784.
“Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.” --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785