Russell can be read as a critique of PG. As he says, there is value simply in doing the thought experiments of philosophy even when this does not lead towards any greater knowledge of truth. In theory, this should allow one to greater appreciate what one does NOT know, which could (and, in my view, should) make one more humble.
However, part of the problem of philosophy is it occasionally makes truth claims about the nature of its work and designs. This most philosophy profs to teach it as if it is a science, which it is not. If one viewed the ramblings of philosophers as more akin to the musings of the great poets presumably there could be greater appreciation all around.
Still, there must be selectivity of some sort. With PG, I also wouldn't advise anyone to read through the collected works of Berkeley. Russell's history unfortunately also isn't great, although, IMHO, it is worth reading.
However, part of the problem of philosophy is it occasionally makes truth claims about the nature of its work and designs. This most philosophy profs to teach it as if it is a science, which it is not. If one viewed the ramblings of philosophers as more akin to the musings of the great poets presumably there could be greater appreciation all around.
Still, there must be selectivity of some sort. With PG, I also wouldn't advise anyone to read through the collected works of Berkeley. Russell's history unfortunately also isn't great, although, IMHO, it is worth reading.