Hi
I read somewhere that Bertrand Russell had a weak grasp of Kant’s philosophy. I want to verify whether there is any basis to that statement. I do understand that Kant can be rather difficult to read and that many philosophers have struggled to understand him, but, nevertheless, I have been reluctant to read Bertrand Russell’s History of Philosophy because of that. I look forward to your feedback.
davidmich
I am a philosophy graduate who studied Russell and Kant. Having said that, my studies were very much secondary to all the entertaining extra-curricular activities on offer at the time so I wouldn’t say I speak with any particular authority.
My clearest memory of the course I took on Kant was the lecturer explaining the English translation of his work is so good that for native German speakers who wish to study Kant, it is actually easier to learn English and then read Kant in the translation rather than trying to decipher his original German. No doubt a slight exaggeration but it gets the point across about how hard Kant is to read and understand.
I can’t remember enough about the tenets of Russell’s or Kant’s philosophy to comment on your precise question I’m afraid, but even if your hypothesis is correct, I wouldn’t let that stop you reading Russell’s work. I haven’t read the particular book you mention but surely you could just disregard the section on Kant, or better still, read it, then read Kant’s work and commentary on it, and form your own conclusions - that’s what philosophy is all about.
Thanks Deadcat.
davidmich
A lot of people say Russell’s History is unreliable, particularly with regard to German idealists, with whom he was unsympathetic, but I think it is Hegel, much more than Kant, that he is supposed to have got wrong. Furthermore, Russell was something of a pioneer of the study of Leibniz, who, in a sense, was the founder of the German idealist tradition, but who was almost forgotten in the English speaking world before Russell revived his reputation. (No doubt our understanding of Leibniz has moved on a lot since Russell’s time, but if not for Russell, that process might never have got going.)
Russell’s own philosophy, however, was a pretty direct and vehement reaction against the British idealists, people like Bradley, Green, and McTaggart, who, in the late 19th century, had taken over and carried on the post-Hegelian tradition. Thus Russell really had very little sympathy for this whole genre of philosophy. Kant, however, really only had one foot in this tradition (or, rather, German idealism flowed out of one side of Kant’s work), and another in the Empiricism that Russell greatly admired, and saw himself as reviving. I rather think he thought that Kant was a truly great philosopher, but one from whom Hegel and the other idealists had taken all the wrong lessons.
For all its faults, though, Russell’s History is well worth reading, and almost certainly a much better, livelier read than most attempts at a comprehensive history of philosophy. If you are a beginner in the field, it is still a great place to start, provided it isn’t also where you end. Any such book, of such ambition, is bound to contain many biases, errors and inaccuracies, and to gloss over a lot of details (and even to completely leave stuff out), some of which might be considered very important by other scholars. The thing is not to not read Russell, but to read it critically, and not to take it as the last word or the definitive framework, whether on Kant, or Hegel, or anyone else, or, indeed, on which philosophers belong in the canon (opinions about which can change a lot over time).
Doper Half Man Half Wit seems to be very knowledgeable about the German philosophical tradition, and can probably tell you in some detail just where Russell got it wrong.
Thanks njtt I’ll proibably read Russell together with some other histories I have and hopefully get a balanced view.
davidmich