The History of Western Philosophy

Rating:
Summary: A magisterial overview
Review: I was given this book as a school-prize, many years ago, and I have been surprised to discover how much it has improved over the years!

It is really not a book for a 17yo boy -- but, then again, it is a wonderful book for a boy, to fire his curiosity and get his mind working. And coming back to it after many years' study of history and philosophy only gives one a deeper appreciation of Lord Russell's luminous intelligence, enlivening every sentence and every page.

Another reviewer noted with horror that Russell completely ignores Heidegger and Kierkegaard. Well, now you know Lord Russell's opinion of those two mountebanks, don't you? As Anthony Gottlieb states in his recent updating of Russell's work, "The Dream of Reason," any discipline which produced Heidegger owes an apology to the world. And Kierkegaard? A Christian existentialist? Anyone who imagines there could BE such a thing can't think his way out of a wet paper bag. Another "great" not reverenced by Russell is Hegel, and there I also agree completely, as I do with his carefully astringent treatment of the madman Rousseau.

So the book is (of course) a long, well-considered summary of a field which Russell spent his life in. It is hardly surprising that he finds some efforts more valuable than others. There are many pungent insights in this book to be carefully considered: for example, that Western philosophy since Descartes has been "insane," and that Greek philosophy was highly and extravagantly admired for a faulty method: deducing everything from a priori principles. Nowadays we understand that this is a good method for mathematics, but a bad one for almost everything else, and so (in some sense) modern science happened AGAINST the ancient Greeks (although Plato was a much more extreme deductionist than Aristotle).

It's hard to find better books than this!

Rating:
Summary: Great gift for first-rate high schoolers
Review: I was raised in places like Okeechobee, Florida, and Orlando when it was still largely agricultural. This book was my first introduction to the breadth and complexity of this beautiful civilization. It is a wonder. Russell shows how hard it was to learn how to think. He gives everything that matters in the development of thinking in the western world, at least up to the Twentieth Century. Russell's views of philosophy and the philosophers remain connected to the realities of everyday life. This book makes a great G*I*F*T for first-rate high school kids. Feeling that a kid is ready for Russell is a high compliment.

Rating:
Summary: THE Introduction to Western Thought
Review: I'm going to make this short but sweet. There are many books out there promising the reader an introduction to philosophy. And more times than less these books do not measure up to the reader's expectations, or simply bore the reader and cause philosophy to lose another interested adherent. If you have ever wanted to know what philosophy was all about, whether a novice or simply a victim of an "Intro to Philosophy" course at college, this is the only book you will ever need. But I guarantee it won't be the only book you'll purchase on the subject of philosophy.

Written for the intelligent public with a verve and panache in the style that shows the author's love of the subject, this book will stimulate your interest as it makes the foggiest questions clear. No matter what the price you pay for it, it will go down as the best intellectual investment you've ever made. Sure, the are prejudices shown in the book, and Lord Russell was a strong-willed philosopher. But you will find yourself purchasing supplemental books on the subject to determine whether Russell was right or wrong in his opinion. You will already have the facts, due to Russell's diligence and clear style. I myself am on my third copy of the book, having worn out the previous two reading, writing and teaching the wisdom contained within their pages.

Rating:
Summary: Readable and Informative
Review: I've read this book twice and am always impressed by it. Russell is the most readable of philosophers, and this is one of his best books. It's easy to read and consistently interesting; there's hardly a dull page in it. You would think that the long middle section on the Catholic philosophers would be as dry as dust, but Russell makes it completely fascinating, a strength rather than a weakness. His overview of Plotinus is far more readable than Plotinus himself, and this is generally true of all the writers he discusses.

The book is not without weaknesses. First, it's not long enough! Second, coverage of twentieth century philosophy is very brief (the book was published in 1945). Third, his coverage of William James (a favorite of mine, of course) is too unsympathetic and, apparently, too uninformed and superficial to be of much value. In this it shows haste, a fault which Russell admits in his Autobiography. Finally, I don't have the book in front of me, but I don't think he says much about the existentialists. These lacks are all the more galling because he does devote so much space to the Church, which is likely to be of less interest to most potential readers.

But it wouldn't do to let these sins of omission cloud the view of the riches that are present. This is truly a great book, and one could do worse than use it as a guide and introduction to a reading program of philosophical history. I say "history" rather than "philosophy" because I think the writers he covers have been surpassed and have largely become irrelevant--except perhaps for scholars--toward developing a view of philosophical questions. This is more true for the general reader, because so many of the old books are so dreadfully written. To get a start on philosophical questions, one could hardly do better than Russell's Problems of Philosophy. But then, who am I to contradict Ray Monk, who called this "the perfect introduction to the subject."

Russell's education and his grasp of history and culture are unsurpassed (except for maybe Will Durant), and his brilliance and clarity shine on every page. This book is essential reading for one's education... but it may not say much to you personally. It won't change your life. For that kind of value, read Russell's Conquest of Happiness or Walter Kaufmann's Faith of a Heretic.

Rating:
Summary: Readable and Informative
Review: I've read this book twice and am always impressed by it. Russell is the most readable of philosophers, and this is one of his best books. It's easy to read and consistently interesting; there's hardly a dull page in it. You would think that the long middle section on the Catholic philosophers would be as dry as dust, but Russell makes it completely fascinating, a strength rather than a weakness. His overview of Plotinus is far more readable than Plotinus himself, and this is generally true of all the writers he discusses.

The book is not without weaknesses. First, it's not long enough! Second, coverage of twentieth century philosophy is very brief (the book was published in 1945). Third, his coverage of William James (a favorite of mine, of course) is too unsympathetic and, apparently, too uninformed and superficial to be of much value. In this it shows haste, a fault which Russell admits in his Autobiography. Finally, I don't have the book in front of me, but I don't think he says much about the existentialists. These lacks are all the more galling because he does devote so much space to the Church, which is likely to be of less interest to most potential readers.

But it wouldn't do to let these sins of omission cloud the view of the riches that are present. This is truly a great book, and one could do worse than use it as a guide and introduction to a reading program of philosophical history. I say "history" rather than "philosophy" because I think the writers he covers have been surpassed and have largely become irrelevant--except perhaps for scholars--toward developing a view of philosophical questions. This is more true for the general reader, because so many of the old books are so dreadfully written. To get a start on philosophical questions, one could hardly do better than Russell's Problems of Philosophy. But then, who am I to contradict Ray Monk, who called this "the perfect introduction to the subject."

Russell's education and his grasp of history and culture are unsurpassed (except for maybe Will Durant), and his brilliance and clarity shine on every page. This book is essential reading for one's education... but it may not say much to you personally. It won't change your life. For that kind of value, read Russell's Conquest of Happiness or Walter Kaufmann's Faith of a Heretic.

Rating:
Summary: Crave knowledge?
Review: If you've ever wanted to understand the greatest thinkers in the history of Western Philosophy, here's some simple advice: read all of them and all of their books. No problem, right? Start with the Pre-Socratic fragments, then onto Plato, Aristotle, up through the Philosophy of the Church, then into the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, British Empiricism, Romanticism, German Idealism, Pragmatism, Logical Positivism, and the list goes on. Oh, by the way, if you really want to understand this stuff, you'll have to know a bit about the historical context in which these thinkers thought, too.

The reality is that, if you're reading speed doesn't reach 2,000 words-per-minute, and if you don't have the desire to go to college for that doctorate in Philosophy, you're probably not going to be able to cover all of the greatest Western thinkers in their deserved depth.

This is where Bertrand Russell comes in. Bertrand, an early twentieth century thinker, educated at Cambridge, does the incredible: he provides a comprehensive history of Western thought, that is not only easy to understand, but amazingly hard to put down. Even if you're not usually interested in philosophy, Russell's lively account will pull you in. It's filled with history, humor, ancedotes and fascinating lives, but, most of all, it's filled with great ideas that will cringe your brow and make you ponder.

The History is easy to get through. It's written in quick, easy-to-digest chapters, usually about 10-15 pages in length. Want to know about Aristotle's Ethics? Read the chapter. Want to know about Christianity During the First Four Centuries? About Mohammedan Culture and Philosophy? About the Italian Renaissance? About Machiavelli, Descartes, Locke, Hume, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, or Marx? Read the chapters. If you're eager for knowledge, your excitement will lead you quickly through this book, and Russell's intelligence and humor will not let you down. He's a great teacher.

A few criticisms. Because Russell is not afraid to give his opinion of all the philosophers, sometimes you wonder if you're getting the real picture. For example, he paints Jean-Jacques Rousseau as the arch-villain of history; this is certainly an intriguing perspective, but I can't help but question the author's implicit conclusion that Rousseau is almost singularly responsible for the ills of the world. Also, while the content is generally well-balanced, Russell gives an undue amount of attention to Locke (40+ pages), and two modern philosophers, Bergson (20 pages), and Dewey. As John Dewey is Russell's contemporary, Russell seems to have a keen desire to ingratiate himself to the man, and such toadying doesn't play well in a History of Western Philosophy. On the whole, though, the book sings.

You may think you're going to use this as a reference, but, like a good bag of potato chips, once you taste a bit of it, you'll want to finish the whole thing and your hand will be at the bottom of the bag, scraping out the crumbs and yearning for more.

Rating:
Summary: A Good Reference (Edited Review)
Review: In 2001, I refused to call this book a pure reference. It was a safer bet, supposedly, to look for dry philosophical biographies--this way the reader rightly avoids Russell as he proselytizes for logical analysis.

I've since changed my opinion of the book, though. I now believe Russell's blanket hate of putative "dogmatism" is better than a doomed try at philosophical and historical objectivity. For the summaries act as nice catalysts: you read Russell's dismissal of Nietzsche; you get annoyed at his caricature of Nietzsche as a frothing sadist; and then you joyfully go out to refute it all. Maybe you read Walter Kauffman's rehabilitative scholarship. Or maybe you pick up "Beyond Good and Evil" and do earnest philosophy by yourself.

Of course, if this is not seen as a plus in itself, here are some points about the actual content:
1) Risking hagiography, the chapter on Leibniz is still an excellent summary.
2) The chapters on ancient philosophy are much better than anything found in the Oxford, Cambridge, and Routledge encyclopedias. Here, at least, Russell rightly judges philosophical merit in its social and political context.
3) For the most part, the author of "Why I Am Not a Christian" is not overly bilious when discussing Catholic Philosophy. Still, he does call Aquinas--argubly one of the greatest Aristotleans--a master of religious "special pleading."
4) Ridiculously, Russell does not offer anything about the Tractatus-period work of Ludwig Wittgenstein. There is also no mention of Kierkegaard (Russell could not have seen the Dane as too literary: this book includes a curious and very light chapter on Lord Byron).
5) First published in 1945, the book thus has Frege, Whitehead, and Russell himself as its representatives of modern philosophy. Today, though, we have the great achievements of Popper, Quine, Rawls, Nozick, Donald Davidson, Daniel Dennett, and so many others. The beginning philosopher should look elsewhere in order to learn more about these contemporary thinkers.

Rating:
Summary: An excellent introduction to the world of philosophy
Review: In my teens this book meant much to me . As one who wanted to know who loved to know this book promised an entrance to the world of higher wisdom. Russell tells the story of philosophy as if it is a continuous narrative, a kind of progress in which successors learn from and transcend their predecessors. It all of course comes to climax in the analytic philosophy of his own time. But he does not present this last chapter as a final conclusion, but rather as a problem still problematic and needing addressing.
From the point- of - view of many years later the work still has its charm, still seems a wonderful piece of literary work, but is understood in many ways as prejudiced. Russell did not have space in his heart and mind for Kierkegaard, and the whole world of Existensialism. He did not really give much space to the philosophy of religion, or spiritual experience of any kind. The work does not really take into account sufficiently the scientific and technological developments which transform so greatly our understanding of ourselves and our world. It seems to me the ' philosophy' we need today, the wisdom we need today is much broader than that Russell envisaged. At the same time the Queen of the Sciences has if we rely on the analytic tradition alone contracted and is less central than before.
With all objection and qualification however this work is a wonderful introduction to the History of Philosophy, in no small part because of Russell's great enthusiasm for the subject and capacity to convey this in sparkling prose.

Rating:
Summary: A Bad History of Philosophy ... but it has its uses
Review: In so far as this work accurately presents the history of philosophy, it would deserve only two stars. Bertrand Russell was an early analytic philosopher, and so you will get only an early analytic point of view on the history of philosophy. He has a terrible understanding of the medieval period, and an even worse one of Nietzsche and Hegel. Further, his understanding of ancient philosophers is, for the most part, rather mediocre. The exception is his presentation of Plato, which is only slightly better than his understanding of St. Thomas Aquinas (he seems to care very little for the artistic elements in the Platonic dialogues and so misses the point almost entirely). The strengths of this work, in so far as it is a history of philosophy, lie chiefly with those figures that generally support the early analytic position (e.g. Locke, Kant, Hume, etc.) Still, as other readers mentioned, I would have liked to see more about his own area of specialty, namely logic.

I gave it three stars since I use the book as a counterpoint for papers. Russell's understanding of medieval philosophers, Hegel, and Nietzsche is so terrible that his interpretation turns out to be useful for contrasting better interpretations. He has really presented a paradigm of how not to interpret these philosophers, which can be instructive. This book might also be useful for someone interested in learning about certain modern philosophers, as I read someone suggested it would be useful for high school students.

Still, I cannot give this work more than three stars because of its many demerits as a history of philosophy, which is what it is supposed to be. Some reviewer suggested that the terrible interpretations are precisely what one should expect from Bertrand Russell, and that he would have been disappointed if Russell had created a more "even-handed" work. Such a suggestion might have merit, but it fails to understand the purpose of the book: to present a history of philosophy!

In sum, if you are interested in an accurate history of philosophy from the pre-Socratics to the 20th century, you should not buy this book. Period. Instead look to Frederick Copleston's _A History of Philosophy_ in its nine volumes. Even Copleston's understanding of Nietzsche is not totally satisfactory, but it's much better. I would suggest buying this book only for three reasons. First, buy it to use as a counterpoint for philosophical essays (if you are going to do this, you should be at least a philosophy major, though I've only found use for this in graduate school). Second, buy it to understand Bertrand Russell's understanding of the history of philosophy - which might be necessary for some scholarly work. Finally, buy it to gain an understanding of some modern philosophers, pragmatists, and analytic thinkers (which might have been the appropriate goal for high school students). Though if you are considering it for the final option, you could probably just buy Copleston's work for the same volumes.

Rating:
Summary: excellent introduction
Review: It seems that the previous reviews cover most of the praise and objections that can be offered. I will reiterate those that deserve special emphasis. Many others have pointed out Russell's biases. As some have noted they are hardly hidden and quite clear to the reader. zencoyote above points out that this is only to be expected. Do we really believe that someone, anyone, can write a history of anything and not let their biases influence what events are given prominence and which are not? Russell's biases are clear (he often points them out to the reader himself) and add color to the text. If you want to read a history with a different set of biases then find a different author.

The strengths of this book lie in the first two thirds -- dealing with the ancient Greeks and the medieval scholastics. When it reaches the modern age it begins to lose some of its brilliance. The selection of topics is curious -- Byron is included but Voltaire is not, Dewey is present but not Kierkegaard. A strangely large amount of space is devoted to Locke and I couldn't help but feel that he didn't do justice to Hegel's views (even though I think I am in general agreement with Russell about them).

The most interesting aspects of this book are that Russell attempts to show philosophy in the context of society at large and provides a criticism of the various philosophies. This criticism is especially useful for a novice.