Opinions in Will Durant?
>>23546194Read by pseuds and fakes
>>23546194story of philosophy is good
>>23546194Great start to get a cohesive picture of western history, but you can't end with him. He's your beginning.
I was told to read anthony kenny instead (his history is really good)
>>23546418/thread
>>23546194Philistine pseud. Treats philosophers as thought they were pundits. No real understanding. But he should know better>>23546235Good for children and adolescents, I suppose, but youre better off avoiding it
>>23547300no explanation for opinions, so dismissed.
>>23547300>as thought they>youre
>>23546194This board is full of supercilious haters of course, but the man was honestly a total chad.Back then you could just make the wildest editorializations in your history book and still have it accepted as history.It's certainly more literary than academic, but that's the charm of it.
>>23547383Anyone who uses the word chad without irony deserves to be on the receiving end of supercilious hatred>>23547322Youre even a bigger pseud than Durrant if you think spelling matters kek
>>23546194reddit tier
>>23547383If you're going to read mythology, read Robert Graves, poet cannibal murder sex cults for male virgins > just so eisegesis.
>>23547434I like how your post implies you can't read both authors.When did this board become just plain fucking stupid?
>>23547438>I like howwhy is this low test reddit construction so popular? on the same level as "maybe, just maybe" or "it's almost as if">you can't read both authors.No, it implies you shouldn't waste your time with Durant, an author for plebs.
>>23547438Hey Redditor wiseass, get the fuck out of 4chan
>>23547438~2021
>>23546194Yeah, he had some opinions in him.
