Luke in his “best textbooks on every subject” post calls out the book as inaccurate, with a link to this post (only available on archive). (I don’t have any strong opinions on this, but figured that this might be useful context)
I also don’t have strong opinions on how accurate the book is, but that link really doesn’t support the claim that the book is inaccurate. Its most scathing criticism of Russell: “As far as the omissions go, the grossest is the denial of any role to Eastern philosophy.” Something I’m inclined to forgive in a “History of Western Philosophy”. Then there are complaints about “inconsequential logical griping...from place to place” in the book, which again is not really a devastating blow.
I was going to post this also. I was expecting much more specific and pointed accuracy critiques, but the linked review mostly seems to grouse about emphasis.
Luke in his “best textbooks on every subject” post calls out the book as inaccurate, with a link to this post (only available on archive). (I don’t have any strong opinions on this, but figured that this might be useful context)
I also don’t have strong opinions on how accurate the book is, but that link really doesn’t support the claim that the book is inaccurate. Its most scathing criticism of Russell: “As far as the omissions go, the grossest is the denial of any role to Eastern philosophy.” Something I’m inclined to forgive in a “History of Western Philosophy”. Then there are complaints about “inconsequential logical griping...from place to place” in the book, which again is not really a devastating blow.
I was going to post this also. I was expecting much more specific and pointed accuracy critiques, but the linked review mostly seems to grouse about emphasis.