Rating: 
Summary: definitely worth the time, but a bit superficial in areas
Review: "a history of western philosophy" is a great introduction to the field for the devotee or novice of ideas and is entertaining for intellectuals and book lovers, but russell clearly has not read a great deal of some of the philosophers he attacks and dismisses so sneeringly. ... schopenhauer pretended to believe in the renunciation of the will, but this part of his philosophy is precisely that which we should take with a grain of salt, as schopenhauer himself proved with his life--he loved wine, books, writing, music, etc, all things which clearly involved the excitement and use of the will. his renunciatory, life negating ethic is only a sort of postscript to "the world as..." and his pessimism is more tongue in cheek and temperamental than objective or philosophical. the value of his work lies in everything but these essentially unimportant and immature elements. nietzsche was not, as russell, portrays him, a grim obsessive over power who did nothing but advocate the the elimination of the average and weak elements of society. nor was he an anti semite as russell implies. in fact, nietzsche despised anti semites and considered the jewish people an exceptionally strong and enduring race of people. russell claims several times that nietzsche's philosophy is essentially a love of pain, which is a caricature if ever there was one. nietzsche preached a philosophy of absolute life affirmation, meaning not only the acceptance but the affirmation of creative joy AND pain and destruction. his is not a philosophy of force worshiping masochism, but quite the opposite, an exaltation of the creative and liberated individual from false values and conformity. 'will to power' rhetoric aside, nietzsche was, in the final equation, anti authoritarian, although he never would have admitted it.taking these substantial flaws into consideration, this is still an immensely important book and one that will be read by those self educators of philosophy who yearn to understand the 'why' of existence.
Rating:
Summary: a useful and witty intro to Western thought....
Review: ....well-placed within its historical context. Readable and not overly technical. Bear in mind that Lord Russell is as rationalistic and positivistic as Isaac Asimov, whose chronology of history puts down such "mystical" movements as alchemy and gnosticism.
Rating: 
Summary: Comprehensive.
Review: A great overhaul. For those interested in the stages philosophy has underwent, it is very comprehensive and readable.
Rating:
Summary: Super
Review: A very good introduction, so long as the reader knows with whom they are dealing. Russell is fair and even-handed in his narrative and analysis, but he never pretends the book is written sans opinion. The end of the final chapter is a good example as Russell goes on the war-path against philosophers who he claims have failed to separate their metaphysics from their morals, corrupting both. As far as the breadth of the content, I found it quite adequate for both philosophies with which I was both familiar and unfamiliar. I think the focus on the Greeks and Catholic philosophers is a little inconvenient for students who are more interested in modern philosophy (as most are). The paucity of information on Kant is not that serious of a problem. Russell disagrees with him often, but does make the point that Kant is important-- the reader can read Kant on his own; Russell's summary is adequate. I wish Russell had discussed logical positivism and mathematical philosophy, those things he knows best, at greater length.
Rating:
Summary: great & misleading book
Review: absolutely aweful on the germans. those chapters on hegel, nietzche are pretty bad. the one on kant is OK but could have been 1st rate because he really knew kant in his younger days but seemed to have forgotten all about him by the time he wrote "history". the chapters on the british philosophers are pretty good, but russell knew nothing about the middle ages. recent research has shown the so-called dark ages had made some pretty significant advances & contributions to logic & philosophy. the chapters on greeks are what you would expect from an introductory text, but then there are many such books on the market. russell had a chapter on william james but nothing on pierce, who is now generally regarded as the greatest US thinker, so it's a strange omission. he knew pragmatism but failed to give a very good account. i am most disappoined with the last chapter on analytic philosophy, set theory & foundations of math. he was at the forefront of all these recent developments, and among the first to work on, at the turn of the 20th century, the philosophical significance of Weierstrass, Cantor and Dedekind, especially cantor.
But by the 1940s, he had dropped out of research in the latest math/philo advances. the advances & revolutions in math. logic -of which ruseel was one of its founders - later wittgenstein, godel, lowentheim-skolem theorem, transfinite set theory beyond cantor... had all passed him by. these developments & upheavals are as tumultuous as 20th century political history. but strangely, russell paid no attention to these. in sum, it's a great & aweful book only a great but infuriating thinker like russell could produce. but i think there are better intro texts to the subject.
Rating:
Summary: Comprehensive, clear, and biased, view of Western Philosophy
Review: Although I have an inherent loathing of logical positivism, and Russell is the pinacle of this, this book is a must for all philosophy readers. The sections on Aristotle, Locke and Hume are of a particular succinct quality; summing up perfectly the entire range of their thought. But, I have two large objections. Firstly, the omissions; where is Soren Kierkegaard? Where is Edmund Husserl? Where is Martin Heidegger? Where is A.N. Whitehead? And where is there any mention of existentialism or Phenomenology? Secondly, the review of Nietsche is awful, Russell wants us to discount and forget Nietsche all together. How can we do this? Surely he is one of the most important figures for the future of philosophy, especially in the area of ethical and moral questions.
Rating:
Summary: Good broad history - esp. for the layman
Review: Although Russell's history is biased, it provides an excellent overview of Western philosophy's history - puting it in a political and social context and thus making it more accessible to the layman.
Rating: 
Summary: Entertaining, lucid and captious - typically Russellian
Review: As a history of Western philosophy it has its obvious (and by now pretty well-known) shortcomings, although I don't think that dishonesty is one of them. Russell does mention that he counts himself a positivist. He does dish out harsh treatment to some philosophers undeservedly, such as Kant (but even there he starts the chapter by telling the reader that Kant is generally reckoned to be one of history's finest philosophers). One of the most interesting aspects of the book is Russell's thorough attempt to explain philosophy's 'connection with political and social circumstances', as promised in the title. I know too little about history to be able to comment on Russell's exposition of political circumstances, but his attempts to expose the relationship between the histories of politics and of ideas are brave and normally sound convincing. What his approach does is make the philosphy come alive and the reader (this reader at any rate) more appreciative of the impact philosophy (and hence philosophers) can have in the real world - whatever THAT is... Above all, the prose is classic Russell and the book is highly entertaining for several reasons, all good! By no means definitive; but if I wanted that, I'd find a dictionary.
Rating:
Summary: A view from a high peak
Review: As a novice in the world of formal philosophy, I was entirely grateful for the existence of this book. Russell offers not only an expansive view of western philosophy within rigorous historical context, but manages to convey much of his own philosophy within his critiques. I came, over time, to look at this book as more an expression of Russell's philosophy in relation to the entire course of western thought. How could it be anything different? Russell's perspective is, however well-informed, quite one-sided. So much so that the individual philosophers he takes on have no hope of a fair trial. However much I agree with him about Nietzsche, Russell does not even attempt to be fair. Better to appreciate this book for what it is: a personal view. As such, it is quite expansive, and if you need to know more about western philosophy, you'll easily fill in the missing pieces if you start here. But don't run away hurt if your favorite philosopher gets short shrift - I also find myself disagreeing with Russell in many areas. Instead, as you read, try to keep what he accomplishes here separate from how he does it. This is truly a great work, and downplaying its importance because of skipping or riding some particular fellow would be like criticizing the Great Wall of China because they used sub-par mortar. Here is a journey through history through the eyes of one great man. Keep yours open and you may learn something.
Rating:
Summary: A simple history
Review: Bernard Russell's history is famous mostly for expressing his bias. Nevertheless, the history does give a good introduction to classical and modern philosophy; however, it is "empty" in the middle. The Middle Ages are almost completely forgotten other than Aquinas and a chapter on the Franciscans in general. Too often Russell gives his opinion or worses, his personal experiences to invade the book, such as his section on Aquinas beginning with a complaint that some Catholics complained to him that it is immodest to question Aristotle or Aquinas...that's great, but it doesn't make either wrong or right. Etienne Gilson's "The Unity of Philosophical Experience" fills in the holes and is much better for drawing links between various trends of thought, such as Ockham and Hume or Augustine and Descartes.
|
