I found the description of philosophy itself concise and accurate, yet more comprehesive than other overviews I've heard and read.
The explanatory part is rather concise. His outline for the 'need' for Philosophy suffers from being overwrought.
In drawing out the REASON for Philosophy, he's succumbing to the same pedantic style so many writers of Philosophy suffer from. That, in and of itself, was enough to set the general tone toward the piece as negative.
Bad rhetorical positions are one thing. Poor linguistic flourishes are another.
Truth be told, having studied Philosophy I found that any time someone either tries to 1.)enumerate reasons why someone ought to be interested in Philosophy or 2.)outlines a general history of Philosophy, they fall short.
In the first case, people are often put off because they don't know how to think logically or rationally. In fact, and take my word on this, most people like to hang their hats on their idiosyncrasies and illogical beliefs. In their minds, Philosophy threatens their humanity and thus their existence.
As for a general history of Philosophy, you're attempting to present a tableau of historically significant and not entirely simple ideas in some sort of context. Even by outlining different schools of Philosophy, you have to put forth WHY they're different schools.
Anyway, I found it dry, even as a pro-Philosophy piece.
If you want to see something really neat along the lines of Philosophy, check out
Plato's Allegory of the Cave from Chapter VII of the Republic and then watch
The Matrix and see if you note any similarities. Far more interesting than this historical Philosophy. ;-)
If you want to see something really neat along the lines of Philosophy, check out Plato's Allegory of the Cave from Chapter VII of the Republic and then watch The Matrix and see if you note any similarities. Far more interesting than this historical Philosophy. Actually, I have no interest is seeing, "something really neat," along the lines of anything. I suspect you are young, (at least younger than I, who am enjoying my sixth decade). My wife and I have watched no TV for about 15 years, and watch only a few selected "videos" of some old, but very good movies.
As for interest, I consider philosophy one of those subjects that one must master, like mathematics, if one desires to be successful in life, even if they are mortally bored by it. Ultimately, the most enjoyable things in life are those that are the most difficult to achieve and hardest to learn to enjoy.
By the way, while I disagree entirely with the philsophical views of Bertrand Russell, his History of Western Philosophy is a pure joy to read. (I know you have not read it.)
I also recommend Philosophy: Who Needs It, by Ayn Rand. You can get a taste of it Here. I would be very interested in your opinion of that taste, if you take it.
Hank