Title: Mediocre
Product review: Kenny begins the book by criticizing Russell. Yet all the supposed faults of Russell - bias, "notorious" unfair treatment of some philosophers, etc. - can be applied to Kenny himself in this book. His own Roman Catholic orthodoxy permeates throughout his comments. He idolizes Wittgenstein, even though Wittgenstein impresses nobody but the most gullible of academic philosophers. He trashes Hume - for obvious reasons. He defends free will, but provides no explanations. He considers that best history of philosophy by a single author is the one by Frederick Copleston, who happened to be a Jesuit priest. I found myself shaking my head no matter what I chanced to read in this book. There are many good histories of philosophy, but this book is not one of them. I advise readers to go back to Russell's masterpiece instead.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
