(Part 2) Best philosophy history books according to redditors
We found 424 Reddit comments discussing the best philosophy history books. We ranked the 220 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
You're right, it's partly a joke. Here's what he has to say about it:
>As a matter of fact, yeah. Some people were actually offended. My big worry is not to be ignored, but to be accepted. When I appear to be sarcastic, the point is not to take seriously. What is not to be taken seriously is the very form of sarcasm. It’s the form of the joke which masks the effect that I’m serious. But people still have this idea that this guy did some big crimes. No.Of course it’s not as simple as that that I’m simply a Stalinist. It would be crazy, tasteless, and so on. But… obviously, there is something in it that it’s not simply a joke. When I say the only chance that the left appropriate fascism, it’s not a cheap joke.
http://beanhu.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/zizek/
Bonus: Two reasons you might think Zizek's a Stalinist.
I mean, it sounds like you are asking for a book about the relationship between continental philosophy and the views of analytic philosophers.
You might try Lee Braver's book, A Thing of This World: A History of Continental Anti-Realism.
https://www.amazon.com/Thing-This-World-Continental-Anti-Realism/dp/0810123800
Braver treats the thinkers you have mentioned while comparing them to some of the analytic ideas about epistemology you have mentioned. I haven't read all of it yet, but I think you might dig it.
It's also a lot better, I think, than some of the more "pragmatic" attempts to appropriate continental philosophy, at least in terms of actually trying to understand these thinkers on their own terms and then compare them to analytic points of view. At least, that's my impression from the sections I have read.
Edit:
There are also tons of books dealing with Heidegger's definitions of truth, and I would imagine some of them take into account analytic terminology. Heidegger, for one thing, opposes the correspondence theory of truth. I don't know, however, whether his theory of truth fits those theories of truth, or really any theories of truth.
I don't know of any serious analytic treatments of Derrida. Braver's book might be your best bet here, although I haven't yet read his section on Derrida.
As for Hegel, look at Robert Brandom's work. It's not the most orthodox reading of Hegel, but it uses analytic terminology and is definitely interesting.
For Nietzsche, there's actually a ton of analytic work on Nietzsche that might be able to help you figure out which of the "isms" he fits into. Unfortunately, I haven't read any of it, but it definitely exists.
This post on my blog (sorry for self-promotion) has links to three of Brandom's YouTube lectures on Hegel, his website, and his book on Hegel (which he has made available for free on his website. It also has links to three lectures by Zizek critiquing Brandom's reading: http://cmbodayle.tumblr.com/post/161443561639/slavoj-zizek-hegelian-battles-3-lectures
Just the Arguments has a bunch.
I remember reading a book a few years ago called the Sociology of Philosophies by Randall Collins. It was primarily concerned with I think something called abstract reflexivity sequences or something (decontectualized or uncontextualized theoretical ideas, essentially). Basically, it was about the development of ideas through history particularly in philosophy, the ebb and flow of ingenuity and emotional energy, and the centralization of information/intellectual authority etc. In it he argued, among other things, that the decentralization of information can actually reduce the effectiveness of important information rising to the top. Instead important info can get lost in the crowd. Or maybe that is one conclusion that could be drawn from his observations. I can't remember.
Point is, when you decentralize authority, there can also be a negative effect of an unclear authority for information. So control can be good and bad.
John Richardson wrote a lot on the subject. https://www.amazon.com/Nietzsches-New-Darwinism-John-Richardson/dp/0195380290
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3071129?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
And the Origin of Species is still a great read despite its age. It's amazing how much insight Darwin had so long ago. He was not wrong about almost anything.
No. Just use r/askphilosophy if you have any questions.
Or, if you're really interested, get an introduction to philosophy book. As introductions, I think the The Philosophy Gym by Stephen Law and Think by Simon Blackburn are quite good. For a bit of a more in-depth introduction, The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy is very good.
I appreciate your post. I'm in my mid-thirties now, and think we share some similarities (as, likely, do many people reading an Epicurus board on Reddit), and I wanted to affirm that yes, I too have really struggled with trying to adhere to Buddhism and being raised in a very modern, consumerist society. I also came to Buddhism through seeking wisdom, and if it's helpful as an indication of that, I've read almost everything Marx has written and almost everything Ayn Rand has written.
One of the things that really spurred me on the path of wisdom was Meditations, by Marcus Aurelius. Shortly after that was reading Epicurus, what was left of his writings, anyway, and then about Epicureanism in general. I've reread Meditations a number of times, and also given it as a gift to people. When I was 19 and asked for only book store gift cards for my birthday, I was stoked to buy the Oxford Classics of Philosophy, largely because of the Epicureanism and Stoicism sections.
Ultimately nothing is as powerful to me as Buddhism, Zen, mindfulness, or whatever you prefer to think of it as. The struggle through the practice of living a more mindful life, that is, to be mindful of the present moment and not future-tripping or monkey-braining, feels more visceral to me than the more theoretical pleasures of Stoicism/western philosophy in general. Part of this comes from my understanding of how and why our brains act the way they do, from an evolutionary psychology standpoint.
There is a path, it is not a secret, and it is difficult. And I believe it works. But I am very imperfect and sometimes have doubts, and so I wanted to share.
It's not cheap, but Kearney and Rasmussen's anthology is one of the best I've encountered (though I'm quite partial to the more continental side of things). Amazon link & publisher link. It's pricey, but a great deal for all the content - looking through the selections included might lead to the essay's of interest for cheaper (for example - Kant's Critique of Judgement and Merleau-Ponty's "Eye and Mind" can both be found relatively cheap).
I'd also suggest the far less expensive anthology by Hofstadter and Kuhn's Philosophies of Art and Beauty anthology. It's pretty comprehensive (and massively sized) for it's price - covering Plato to Heidegger. Amazon link & publisher link.
I've heard great things about Lamarque & Olsen's anthology on the more anglophonic side of things, though it's not cheap either. Amazon link & publisher link. I'd give the same advice as above, look through the table of contents and select essays of particular interest.
On a cheaper/lower key level Aesthetics: A Beginner's Guide is a far easier and cheaper read - it's pretty good for getting your feet wet.
Finally, as a way to do your own book finding, why not look through this google search, look through any SEP page that catches your interest, and then check out the bibliographies!
Hope any of these help!
Hi there! There's a lot of different types of philosophy, so it really depends on what you're interested in.
There's two big camps - analytic and continental - but they really boil down to logic and classical reasoning vs. more existential material. Analytic philosophy would try to prove the existence of god, while continental philosophy would talk about how the existence (or non-existence!) of god would impact your life.
All that being said, I would recommend an intro to philosophy book like this. A lot of classic philosophical writers tend to be hard to read and convoluted. I'd recommend getting an intro to phil book and finding what interests you, then going from there.
In here, there is a pretty comprehensive breakdown of the position in the chapter "In Defense of the Perverted Faculty Argument": http://www.amazon.com/Neo-Scholastic-Essays-Edward-Feser/dp/1587315580/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1463405616&sr=8-1&keywords=neo-scholastic+essays
For a briefer introduction, try here: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/01/smith-tollefsen-and-pruss-on-lying.html
Starting at "The 'perverted faculty' argument."
For an accessible overview I'd recommend The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy.
The Philosopher's Toolkit by Julian Baggini
Why not use amazon.com "look inside" feature for the table of contents
Norman Melchert: The Great Conversation may not be specifically suited to your stated interests, but it's a very readable history of philosophy.
If you're interested, this book discusses Nietzsche's ideas regarding his conception of Darwinism:
https://www.amazon.com/Nietzsches-New-Darwinism-John-Richardson/dp/0195380290/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=
Most of Hegel's work is available online at http://www.marxists.org.
This book is about as approachable as you can get. If you want to understand Hegel without having a lecturer help you, this book is probably your only chance.
Remember, Hegel deliberately wrote in a difficult fashion. It is not meant for you to easily understand Hegel.
That is a good list. I am mostly familiar with German Idealism, and I think wrestling with the Hegelian project is a good place to start. Charles Taylor wrote an exposition on Hegel which emphasizes fragmentation that occurred in modernity and Hegel's attempt to overcome this fragmentation.
https://www.amazon.com/Hegel-Charles-Taylor/dp/0521291992
To wrestle with this topic directly there is Hegel's Critique of Modernity: Reconciling Individual Freedom and the Community by Tim Luther.
Most of the works on that reading list are a reaction to Hegel, so it is a good idea to be familiar with him, especially the Phenomenology.
There is a series called Arguments of the Philosophers. It's not aimed at newbies, but it assesses a given philosopher from the analytic standpoint.
There's also this, which is basic, but good: https://www.amazon.com/Just-Arguments-Important-Western-Philosophy-ebook/dp/B005K04HLS
Looking at Philosophy is a nice intro/overview book with silly pictures. It would give you a little bit of an idea what to expect. You get breadth rather than depth, but I think that's the best thing for an introduction. And who doesn't love silly pictures?
I know this author and value her thoughts.
http://www.amazon.com/Ideas-About-Art-Kathleen-Desmond/dp/1405178825
Also, I'd recommend this one
http://www.amazon.com/Philosophies-Art-Beauty-Aesthetics-Heidegger/dp/0226348121/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1333555831&sr=1-5
If you want a good history of philosophy with responses to basically everybody, Fr. Frederick Copleston's A History of Philosophy is pretty good.
Here's the first volume: https://www.amazon.com/History-Philosophy-Vol-Pre-Socratics-Plotinus/dp/0385468431/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1543579301&sr=8-4&keywords=frederick+copleston
Edward Feser deals with both the New Atheists, Enlightenment thinkers, and Old Atheists in The Last Superstition, Aquinas, and Neo-Scholastic Essays. Fr. Garrigou Lagrange's Reality is also worth it.
The Last Superstition: https://www.amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism-ebook/dp/B00D40EGCQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1543579343&sr=8-1&keywords=the+last+superstition
Aquinas: https://www.amazon.com/Aquinas-Beginners-Guide-Edward-Feser/dp/1851686908/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1543579366&sr=8-6
Neo-Scholastic Essays: https://www.amazon.com/Neo-Scholastic-Essays-Edward-Feser/dp/1587315580/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1543579366&sr=8-5&keywords=edward+feser
Reality: https://www.amazon.com/Reality-Synthesis-Reginald-Garrigou-Lagrange-P/dp/1477582401/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1543579439&sr=8-1&keywords=reality+garrigou-lagrange
Honestly, I tend to think Van Til's Presuppositionalism is a better system than a lot of Catholic philosophy. His book Christian Apologetics is probably his easiest to read, though I'll admit I've had more access to his ideas from his defenders than his actual writing: https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Apologetics-Cornelius-Van-Til/dp/0875525113/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1543579550&sr=8-1&keywords=christian+apologetics+van+til
In a less theologically charged but similar category are Alvin Plantinga's Where the Conflict Really Lies and Warranted Christian Belief: https://www.amazon.com/Where-Conflict-Really-Lies-Naturalism-ebook/dp/B005X3SAHY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1543579615&sr=8-1&keywords=where+the+conflict+really+lies+science%2C+religion%2C+and+naturalism
https://www.amazon.com/Warranted-Christian-Belief-Alvin-Plantinga-ebook/dp/B0059EQ4DY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1543579634&sr=8-1&keywords=warranted+christian+belief
http://www.amazon.com/Classics-Western-Philosophy-Steven-Cahn/dp/0872208591/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1302817686&sr=1-3
This is the anthology I used--although, this is probably a newer edition--for my first philosophy class. Huge book, but it has all the basics (and only primary sources), including the three philosophers you asked for. It's a great buy, in my opinion.
It's good talking with you, and I'll reply to this with meatier content a little later since I'm busy, but in the meantime I'd like to add that the #1 very short, sharp, starter-book that I'd recommend to you to understand where I'm coming from is actually written by an apolitical (as far as I know) Christian philosophy professor and Dietrich Bonhoeffer Society member named Jens Zimmermann who wrote Hermeneutics: A Very Short Introduction. This goes a long way towards explaining why I can't just dismiss Christianity or the Jesus message, and also the methodology of how to approach texts and ideas historically situated in a tradition.
This will be controversial, but I also recommend Peter Singer's Very Short Introductions to Marx and Hegel for a critical reading (and in the case of the famously obsucrantist Hegel, comprehensible). Charles Taylor's as supernaturalist introduction to Hegel is also extremely worthwhile. Don't simply dive into Hegel's primary material -start with secondary sources.
. Since you are an anarchist, I suppose you might not have much trouble finding the free PDF of the Marx: A Very Short Introduction floating on Google.
It's from "In Defense of Lost Causes"
I think there's at least several series out there. But for one really good book in the same comic-book vein that's NOT a series, check out "Looking At Philosophy: The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy Made Lighter" by Donald Palmer. Awesome book. :)
http://www.amazon.com/Looking-At-Philosophy-Unbearable-Heaviness/dp/0073407488/
I took a course on aesthetics early in my undergrad and this was our de facto "textbook" that we referred to throughout: https://www.amazon.com/Philosophies-Art-Beauty-Aesthetics-Heidegger/dp/0226348121
It's a broad, if somewhat disconnected, anthology of a number of philosopher's thoughts on aesthetics, including lots of Germans Kant, Hegel, Schelling, Schopenhauer, and Heidegger.
Does the Center Hold
The writing is witty, the author peppers the book with cartoons which do more than entertain. I very much appreciated the layout and topics covered.
>Progress of the past few centuries has been an overwhelmingly positive force for improvement in the lives of most humans. The downsides are small by comparison.
>Does anyone really yearn to return to a world without electricity, modern medicine, transportation, communication, and most important: Reddit?
>I recommend The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves for a nice debunking of nostalgia for the good ol' days before all this progress.
That's nice. I recommend Pessimism: Philosophy, Ethic, Spirit for a nice debunking of "progress." For what's it worth, it won the 2006 APA award for best scholarly book in philosophy.
>As someone within an evolutionary field, Nietzsche has never been discussed meaningfully to my knowledge within the purview of evolution.
If you mean that no evolutionary biologists have talked about Nietzsche's thoughts on evolution, I don't know whether that's true or not. But lots of philosophers definitely have talked about Nietzsche's thoughts on evolution. Here are a few:
https://www.amazon.com/Nietzsches-New-Darwinism-John-Richardson/dp/0195380290
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/517309
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/517310/pdf
https://www.amazon.com/Nietzsche-Biology-Metaphor-Gregory-Moore/dp/0521812305
http://www.counsellingeastlondon.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/The-Blackwell-Companion-to-Nietzsche.pdf#page=524
http://brianleiternietzsche.blogspot.de/2009/02/nietzsche-and-lamarck.html
I would really really REALLY like to have them!! In exchange, I have
In my opinion the best intruduction to philosophy is Palmer's Does the Center hold? In it, the author explains various philosophical problems through the thoughts of major philosophers. And the book has great illustrations.
I gave this book to a friend who wanted to learn something about philosophical thought (problems and history). He read some of it, because the book is problematicaly oriented and so you do not have to read it from page 1 to the end, and he was very pleased.
Also, I woudl say that it has done a great deal for me as a philosophy student and I would say it is a must read for all who are philosophically curious.
German Idealism, particularly Hegel and Schelling, touches on this. Schelling's later works become too mythological and "out there", even for absolute idealism, but his early works present some amazing ideas on nature being mind and us a part of God realizing itself. These ideas also stem from Spinoza's Ethics in that Spinoza presented the idea that we are finite forms of infinite nature and that nature = God, thus we are all a part of God realizing itself, or natural consciousness gaining knowledge about nature.
In terms of recommended readings, I would mostly recommend secondary literature, German Idealism is exceedingly difficult to jump into. Therefore, I recommend the following:
http://www.amazon.com/German-Idealism-Struggle-Subjectivism-1781-1801/dp/0674027175/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404678870&sr=8-1&keywords=beiser+german+idealism
http://www.amazon.com/Hegel-Charles-Taylor/dp/0521291992/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1404678915&sr=1-1&keywords=taylor+hegel
Also, Pinkard has a book on German Philosophy but it is more general (1760 - 1860) which is still a good read but is unable to go into any great depth.
There is also the Routledge guide to Hegel's Phenomenology of spirit which gives an alright surface reading of the book (explains the historical examples used by Hegel and the basic ideas) but I found that it did not go into the metaphysical arguments as in depth as I would have liked.
This is all off the top of my head so I'll return with more reading options if they come to mind.
Discrete Mathematics - Ross and Wright. Once you get into it, this shit is amazing. Epiphanies for days.
The Language Instinct - Stephen Pinker - an utterly fascinating book on language and the brain, chock full of 'well, shit' moments. He's also written a bunch more equally fascinating books - The Blank Slate and How The Mind Works being among them.
Rationality: From AI to Zombies This is a collection of essays on cognitive biases, fallacies and how to kid yourself that you're avoiding them. It will make your brain hurt.
The Philospher's Toolkit - Julin Baggini - a kind of cliff-notes introduction to a wide range of concepts in philosophy
I agree with /u/mapthealmighty4841 - might need more information as to what you are interested in particularly (the subject is very large).
Part of the problem with philosophy education is that it takes some level of guidance to really get the most out of the material. You could try to find courses on itunesU or youtube to really help.
If you want book recommendations, it depends on what you are interested in. If you are looking for "one book to rule them all" though, I would highly recommend https://www.amazon.com/Classics-Western-Philosophy-Steven-Cahn/dp/160384743X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1486491902&sr=8-2 (pretty much a 1 stop anthology for anyone interested in philosophy, but (at least in my earlier addition) it didn't include many 20th century philosophers).
Again, I would recommend trying to find some guidance while reading parts of the book. It is easy to overlook the importance of certain sections of, say, Plato's Republic without someone pointing them out or helping them make sense.
Unfortunately I can't help with links to youtube or iTunesU because my education in philosophy was very formal. If you can be more specific about what you are looking for, I am sure this community can absolutely give you some great links though!
> I'm looking for some primer book that will include the basic concepts and teminology with decent explanations and examples.
Looking at Philosophy: The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy Made Lighter by Donald Palmer is exactly what you're looking for.
Very digestible 4ish page explanations of every philosopher from Thales to 20th Century. It has simple cartoons to illustrate some of the more complex ideas while still capturing the essence of each philosopher's position.
The nice part of the book is how it links each philosopher to put them in dialog. Something like Russell's shitty History of Philosophy is very staccato, with isolated chapters on each philosopher. Palmer does a good job of leading from one philosopher to the next, and touching on how, say, Descartes feeds into Leibniz into Spinoza into Kant.
If you don't want to buy the book a pdf is available here.
I make no claim as to the legality or merit of the linked pdf. You should definitely at least buy a used copy. But perusing that pdf can help you get an idea of why the book is so nifty.
Mike Rugnetta made a few stretches or mistakes in explaining Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" yet the corrections still could have been used to explain the misuse of quotes or the way meaning is lost through translation both literally and through people and time.
The first is error Rugnetta mentions 'I think, therefore I am' doesn't mean I think therefore I have a body, it means I think and therefore there must be stuff, stuff which I'm comfortable labeling me thinking all them thoughts." It would have been better to quote Descartes himself (Yes, I will get to how Descartes is speaking as the I next) explicitly stating, "this 'I,' that is to say, the soul through which I am what I am." (Does Popeye owes Descartes royalties?) Thus the I is the soul and in a secular way a "placeholder". This may seem minimal but would a placeholder continue to exist if the body were removed? Descartes say this is separate from the body and thus continues despite a body being( if the body never was because "Descartes” says I is a soul not a physical thing.) The use of the word “soul” is perfect as today it connotates a religious, in but outer body thing and that is what Descartes is writing about in that Part IV of Discourse on Method.
Say Whaaaa?
Yes. Not only is this a portion of Descartes’ search for the truth (knowledge) but Part IV is about proving “the existence of God and of the human soul, which are the foundations of his metaphysics.” (This quote is from the beginning of the discourse and in in italics. I don’t know if this was from an early editor or friend or pompous Rene Descartes himself). He is constantly drowning the reader with I because he is expelling to the reader how and why he arrived at writing the Discourse. When you learn a little about Descartes’, you suddenly see how parallel the Discourse is to his early life. Thus to say the cogito’s I isn’t really a person speaking” is to ignore Descarte’s definition of I as the soul and thus a person with or without a body.
This leads me to correct Rugnetta’s claim that the Discourse’s avoidance of “you, us or we” was an omittance of the other yet applicable to the other. Descartes is completely redefining philosophy and thus the pre-science days of science. At this time, you were taught to listen, read, memorize and repeat. Scholarship was not thinking critically as we view it today (or some of us) but of absorbing the scholastics. Descartes found much of this during his youth most unsettling when he attended a Jesuit high school which taught the opposite: independent thought. There he began to seek the new topics that were banging on the gates to Universities such as mathematics and later on would conclude he needed to start anew and wipe all predisposed through teaching and get at the essential building blocks: I think, therefore I am.
Why did I tell you all that? To go to the next misused quote, I’m sure there’s something in all of Descartes’ life you could have connected the two (I don’t know much of Sartre so good luck). With No exit, I think there might have been a way to tie it in.
Anyway… Thanks Mike. Thanks for making me pull out Descartes’ Discourse on Method (Hackett, 3rd Ed), The Scientific Revolution by Steven Shapin (Uni. Chicago), and my notes from “The Age of the Scientific Revolution”, a course studying the 1500s and up. Today we call it the Scientific Revolution but to those living at the time they called it philosophy, natural philosophy, and mathematics. Wait, I take back that sarcastic thanks and replace it with a sincere thank you. It was enjoyable to reread sections of the old course material. Made me miss that course actually. Now why the hell did I spend an hour writing this crap?!! WHo'll read it?! Psh!
[Classics of Philosophy] (http://www.amazon.com/Classics-Philosophy-Louis-P-Pojman/dp/0199737290/ref=dp_ob_title_bk) edited by Louis Pojman. Has everything from the pre-socratics to contemporary stuff like Husserl and Rawls
I'm reading the Blackwell Companion to Philosophy right now. I like it so far but I'm not that far in. Something worth looking into.
Finding a book that provides a comprehensive overview that everyone agrees on is going to be tricky because the interpretations in question are often a live scholarly issue. Nevertheless, I thought Lee Braver's [A Thing of This World: A History of Continental Anti-Realism] (http://www.amazon.com/Thing-This-World-Continental-Anti-Realism/dp/0810123800) did an admirable job in situating major continental figures in relation to each other on the question of realism and to who Braver argues are their analytic counterparts. Even if you ultimately reject his thesis, it should help clarify their respective positions.
Here's a reading group discussion on the book that the author participated in, which will hopefully give you a sense of what the book is about.
Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction
James W. Cornman , Keith Lehrer , George Sotiros Pappas [Amazon Link] although published in 1991 it is going to leave out developments in the last 20 years.
But it does fairly well to present a rigorous exploration of 5 key issues in philosophy: God; Epistemology; Ethics; Free Will; Consciousness. Plus it has an overview chapter on Philosophy and its methods.
What makes it of particular interest is that the authors commit to defending particular answers in these areas after having traversed (as best they can) the main relevant issues and positions.
That confers an important understanding of philosophy: that is about trying to find answers to fundamental questions. Rather, as many folk regard philosophy, as a pointless exchange of views without any hope of progress.
Even some philosophers have an unfortunate antipathy toward answers in philosophy. I've heard one philosopher declare something like "Philosophy isn't about answers. If answers are provided in philosophy it becomes ideology and dogma. Philosophy is about questions."
Note the Cornman, Lehrer, and Pappas book can be a bit turgid in its writing style. So I'm glad you have a book of Russell's, Russell being a model of clear and plain expression. I haven't read his Problems of philosophy. I just might have to get it myself.
A friend also recommends An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis (4th Edition, 1996), John Hospers [Amazon Link].
I have "The Sociology of Philosophies" by Randell Collins which seems to just what you're looking for.
The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change https://www.amazon.com/dp/0674001877/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_8IHXDbC4DEFV6
No, uninhibited "free speech" does not work in classrooms or tutorials, and for good reason. The main purpose of a humanities course is to make the students reflect on their own assumptions about the world, building on what other people have thought about the same issues. JP just reinforces what his students already think about the world, and that is why they like him.
A classroom cannot always be a free-for-all jam session because there is a large gap between what the instructors know about the subject and what the students do. Would you allow a pre-med to operate on you, or a poli sci student run the government?
If you are interested in an actual sociology of philosophy, Randall Collins has a popular (if reductive) peer-reviewed book on the topic: https://www.amazon.com/Sociology-Philosophies-Global-Theory-Intellectual/dp/0674001877/