The History of Western Philosophy

Rating:
Summary: Biased and ignorant from start to finish
Review: It's fairly well-written, but that's not the point if you want a history of philosophy - you might as well read a novel. The real point people should be making about this book is that it is absolutely biased. He ignores Kierkegaard and Heidegger, doesn't understand Hegel at all, gives a Humean-biased interpretation of Kant, only just understands Schopenhauer a little (and, once more, doesn't see the wealth of insight in his work), and criticises Nietzsche on the all-too-obvious points, without pointing out some of his brilliant insights about the psychological content of philosophy (which, of course, lead onto Derrida in the '60s). The only passable areas of this are the areas on Greek philosophy, but that's because they've been written about so many times and are 2500 years old it's just about impossible to get it wrong (of course, Russell doesn't add any insightful new interpretations which he could have done in light of Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger - but oh, sorry, I forgot - he doesn't understand Hegel or Kierkegaard, and he ignoroes Kierkegaard and Heidegger). Where's phenomenology? To be fair, Sartre and Merleau-Ponty had only just published their main works, but Brentano and Husserl certainly deserve mentioning - Husserl at the very least.

Also, his attack on Bergson is pathetic. "irrational" ? That is quite arrogant (as is his treatment of others) when we try and consider what Russell's own original work was like. His major epistemological books like "The Analysis of Mind" and "Our Knowledge of the External World" are, closely considered, completely outdated (even when they were written in the early part of this century) and very shaky, far more shaky on their arguments than the idealist philosophers like the brilliant Bradley and McTaggart which Russell didn't like. If Russell hadn't been lucky and entered philosophy at the time when positivism and realism was on the rise, then no-one would remember him today. If he'd been born in Germany at the time of Hegel (or even at his own time, when Husserl and Heidegger were around), then he would have realised he's actually not very good at philosophy and can't understand it's most important aspects, and he would have stuck to mathematics and never muddied the academic waters with his useless repetitive nonsense. At least Whitehead, after writing the adequate "Principia Mathematica" with Russell, went on to produce some important work like "Process and Reality" and some interpretations of the Greeks which excel Russell's pathetic efforts. Russell went on to write some non-mathematical philosophy (in other words, an area he is completely incapable in), and this heavily biased book with only almost no redeeming features, his witty style being the only one. In fact, if no-one read this any more I might have given it 2 or 3 stars and called it an 'interesting period relic' (certainly NOT a classic). As it is, considering it's current over-rated position when there are so many better histories of philosophy to read (Derrida's "From Socrates to Freud and Beyond" or Copleston's History, just as a few examples), it deserves to be forgotten and polemically attacked until it's at least assigned it's proper place.

Rating:
Summary: Not To Be Confused With a Dry Textbook
Review: Like most of Russell's writings, this mammoth effort is extremely learned, clearly written, periodically humorous, intellectually stimulating and predominantly compelling in its logic despite housing a number of statements that do not stand up to reason. The work is composed of three books totaling seventy-six chapters and is not for the time- or attention span-constrained. The nature of the writing is not fully or accurately conveyed by the title alone. This is not a standard, dispassionate textbook explaining the views of profound and/or influential thinkers throughout history. It is, rather, an admixture between such a text, a broader history of social and political events related to the philosophers (as indicated in the subtitle), an aggressive criticism of the subject philosophies and, to a more limited degree, an explicit elucidation of Russell's own philosophical views. In short, it is a very challenging endeavor that is, by and large, pulled off remarkably well.

In each segment on an individual thinker or school, Russell analyzes the philosophic formulations, the ties to earlier and later thinkers, the degree of logical consistency found in the ideas and the moral quality of the individual(s) being presented. While no thinker comes out completely unscathed, Russell does single out those individuals deserving of his high regard in certain aspects. Among them, chronologically, are Boethius ("During the two centuries before his time and ten centuries after it, I cannot think of any European man of learning so free from superstition and fanaticism. He would have been remarkable in any age; in the age in which he lived, he is utterly amazing."), St. Francis of Assisi ("one of the most lovable men known to history."), Spinoza ("the noblest and most lovable of the great philosophers. Intellectually, some others have surpassed him, but ethically he is supreme."), Leibniz ("one of the supreme intellects of all time"), Hume ("To refute him has been, ever since he wrote, a favorite pastime among metaphysicians. For my part, I fine none of their refutations convincing.") and John Dewey ("With most of his opinions I am in almost complete agreement.).

Russell is a master of the polemic and there is no shortage in this work. Those who suffer the most scathing remarks include Plato ("Plato and common sense do not mix easily"), Aristotle ("Any person in the present day who wishes to learn logic will be wasting his time if he reads Aristotle or any of his disciples."), Aquinas ("There is little of the true philosophic spirit in Aquinas. He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead."), Rousseau ("the dictatorships of Russia and Germany (especially the latter) are in part an outcome of Rousseau's teachings"), Hegel ("Such is Hegel's doctrine of the State-a doctrine which, if accepted, justifies every internal tyranny and every external aggression that can possibly be imagined."), Schopenhauer (His "gospel of resignation is not very consistent and not very sincere.", and Marx ("Considered purely as a philosopher, Marx has grave shortcomings.")

As has been the case in everything I've read by Russell, I find a surprising number of statements that seem to be out of harmony with his normally clear thinking. For example, his criticism of More's Utopia, a communistic system with complete lack of freedom, is shockingly insufficient: "It must be admitted, however, that life in More's Utopia, as in most others, would be intolerably dull. Diversity is essential to happiness, and in Utopia there is hardly any." Apparently, for Russell, freedom is not essential to happiness and communism would do nicely if only it came with more diversity. Similarly, in his concluding remarks regarding Nietzsche, he makes a stunning statement: "I think the ultimate argument against his philosophy, as against any unpleasant but internally self-consistent ethic, lies not in an appeal to facts, but in an appeal to the emotions." This is exactly the sort of thinking that he excoriates throughout his writings when applied to the emotionally held, comforting beliefs of others that don't fit so well with his personal prejudices.

Despite my issues with some of his views, I highly recommend grappling with him as a great vehicle for stimulating intellectual growth. Readers seeking a survey style introduction to philosophy will find this to be a richer experience than most available options and one well worth the time investment.

Rating:
Summary: Great intro to the subject; Russell engages and entertains
Review: Many years ago Russell's "History" was my introduction to the subject of philosophy -and the history of Western civilization for that matter. My worn paperback copy has been read and re-read a dozen times. This book inspired me to delve deeper into the ideas and events which are covered. I always find myself going back to this book with a new perspective and Russell doesn't disappoint; every time I read "History" I come across an insight which I missed during a prior reading.

Unlike other, more bland introductions to the subject, Russell is not afraid to tell us his opinions of a particular philosopher or movement. While his bias may skew the subject somewhat for the beginner, it does not detract from the overall value of the work. Philosophy can be a dull, difficult subject, however, Russell's style -his entertaining, often humorous prose, and willingness to interject his own commentary -serve to deeply engage the reader.

The title of this book can be misleading. While the history of philosophy is certainly the central theme, it could more broadly be called "A History of Western THOUGHT", because it encompasses individuals (and the movements associated with them) that might not necessarily be classified as philosophers, but rather as scientists, theologians, or politicians. Russell not only tells us what a particular philosopher believed, he puts their system into an historical perspective and does a masterful job relating the impact of their philosophy to history in general.

Despite being written nearly sixty years ago, this is a timeless classic, and I would recommend it to anyone interested in introducing themselves to the subject of Western thought as well as to those who are looking for another perspective on the subject.

Rating:
Summary: Great intro to the subject; Russell engages and entertains
Review: Many years ago Russell's "History" was my introduction to the subject of philosophy -and the history of Western civilization for that matter. My worn paperback copy has been read and re-read a dozen times. This book inspired me to delve deeper into the ideas and events which are covered. I always find myself going back to this book with a new perspective and Russell doesn't disappoint; every time I read "History" I come across an insight which I missed during a prior reading.

Unlike other, more bland introductions to the subject, Russell is not afraid to tell us his opinions of a particular philosopher or movement. While his bias may skew the subject somewhat for the beginner, it does not detract from the overall value of the work. Philosophy can be a dull, difficult subject, however, Russell's style -his entertaining, often humorous prose, and willingness to interject his own commentary -serve to deeply engage the reader.

The title of this book can be misleading. While the history of philosophy is certainly the central theme, it could more broadly be called "A History of Western THOUGHT", because it encompasses individuals (and the movements associated with them) that might not necessarily be classified as philosophers, but rather as scientists, theologians, or politicians. Russell not only tells us what a particular philosopher believed, he puts their system into an historical perspective and does a masterful job relating the impact of their philosophy to history in general.

Despite being written nearly sixty years ago, this is a timeless classic, and I would recommend it to anyone interested in introducing themselves to the subject of Western thought as well as to those who are looking for another perspective on the subject.

Rating:
Summary: Very in depth, a great example of philosophy reference
Review: Most people might argue that this is a bunch of crap that Russell just put together and that its his own perspective of what good/useful philosophy is. Well they'd be half right. A major factor that people tend to overlook about this book is that it IS Russells own opinion on the history of philosophy, hence the words "writen by Bertrand Russell" on the book and not "edited by Bertrand Russell". If somone is looking for a refrence of sorts for philosophy that is completly unbiased then I would suggest the Cambridge Dictionary Of Philosophy or the even better Oxford Companion To Philosophy. Other than that i have to consider this a GREAT book (altough i only read passages at a time) and really consider Russells opinions as valid ones that I (as a member of my high school debate team) find myself quoting quite often. In essence, its just a good step into a better understanding of philosophy.

Rating:
Summary: A supreme intellectual achievment
Review: Nietzsche is maltreated, slightly. To say that the book is biased, misleading, or that Russell's attitude is in any way arrogant, however, is ignorance and intolerance in itself. Of course, Russell does have a very definite opinion of each philosophy examined, but his own views do not lead him to distort any factual information and the distinction between his opinion and the other philosophers' is very clearly made. To find such rudimentary faults in such a great man is a sign of bland arrogance combined with terrible naivette.

Rating:
Summary: Good introduction to the History of Philosophy.
Review: Nobel prize winner Bertrand Russell does an excellent job in compiling the most relevant stages in the history of Western Philosophy. Russell's facility to communicate such a complicated topic as philosophy in understandable reading is clearly noted in this work. The only downside of this book is that it does not cover some modern philosophers such as Kierkegaard. Anyways, this book is a good addition to any Philosophy library.

Rating:
Summary: Good introduction to the History of Philosophy.
Review: Nobel prize winner Bertrand Russell does an excellent job in compiling the most relevant stages in the history of Western Philosophy. Russell's facility to communicate such a complicated topic as philosophy in understandable reading is clearly noted in this work. The only downside of this book is that it does not cover some modern philosophers such as Kierkegaard. Anyways, this book is a good addition to any Philosophy library.

Rating:
Summary: Bertrand Russell Superstar
Review: Perhaps we can say that this book represents the best in philosophy -- and lo -- the worst in philosophy. Widely regarded as one of the century's most eminent and controversial thinkers it is not unusual that this book should attract a great deal of attention. Russell shows that he is clearly a man of his times, and while he treats some philosophers with too much superficiality, this book remains a solid exposition of western philosophy. The writing here is superb, it is both accessible and insightful, and he always keeps the storyline moving forward in a kind of spirited hop, while trying to throw in some humor along the way. With great confidence in his own intellectual devices, he never hesitates to follow calm philosophic discussions with sharp polemical swipes. And why not? This is what gives the book its spice. While the main focus of this book is on western philosophy, the book tries to push into the border disciplines of history, science and mathematics. The reader gets to enjoy a nice introduction into the problem of 2 squared, the mathematics of Tycho Brahe, and the paradox of sets. Russell shows no intention of giving short shrift to mathematics and science. In fact, his chapter on the rise of science in the 17th century is the finest in the book.

So what does our Superstar think of philosophy? What makes his opinions so popular to some, but not to others? To avoid any misunderstanding let us see exactly what Russell has to say about philosophy. He says "Philosophy...is something intermediate between between theology and science. It consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason. Between theology and science there is a no Man's Land; this no Man's Land is philosophy." So philosophy inhabits a murky domain between two spheres, a sort of open arena of rational speculation that avoids the the trappings of dogma and the minutiae of scientific fact. Unlike the scientific spirit, which must always remain patient and tentative, the philosophic spirit can be bold and speculative, but unlike the theological spirit, must remain free from dogma. As we shall see later, however, Russell is really a man of science and he evaluates each philosopher on whether or not they pushed philosophy in the direction of science and away from theology and metaphysics. Even things like ethics, politics, immortality and the rest of the fodder for metaphysicians do not pass his legitimacy test since they are not easily illuminated by the light of scientific investigation. Russell thinks all definite knowledge belongs to science and the "philosophers" who point the way out of No Man's Land receive his adulation. Those who don't, his contempt.

With this in mind it easy to know who Russell likes and who doesn't. The early Greek, Thales, receives a great deal of grace for originating a distinctive hypothesis -- all is water -- and always seeking to look for natural causes and effects. Moreover, Thales is free from bias; his quip that "all is water" is more akin to an hypothesis and one that has much merit -- physicists used to think hydrogen was the fundamental element and it is 2/3s water. Russell encourages us to think of Thales more as a scientist than philosopher. The fondness he has for many of the Pre-Socratics, especially the Atomists, turns into a rather smug contempt when he gets to Socrates. He expresses particular admiration for the Atomists who were strict determinists and avoided most of the faults to which Greek speculation was prone. More than anyone else, the Atomists had the clearest conception of the scientific method that later Greek philosophers were to reject or betray. Socrates is given very little credit except as a man of deep integrity, but as a philosopher Russell sentences him to a scientific purgatory. Plato pushes scientific interest out of the way even further by rejecting the sensible world as illusory; real knowledge is only to be found in the sympathetic contemplation of true forms. Aristotle, while finding the empirical world fascinating and important, introduced "purpose" (teleology) into scientific explanations and further muddied the scientific waters that future philosophers would drink from. This evaluation of Aristotle seems unduly harsh, since he was by far the most careful, studious, and systematic of all the Greeks. His writings on politics, logic, and most importantly biology are pillars of the western canon. His work On Animals was the greatest scientific achievement of the Greeks. Did the Atomists achieve anything remotely comparable? With Russell however, your achievements matter little, it is your philosophy that counts.

Russell is like a college instructor who treats previous philosophers as students. He rates each philosopher on how well they were able to twist it in a scientific direction. Russell even thinks traditional philosophy is an inharmonious blend of values (political, religious, ethical) on the one hand and nature of the world on the other. So philosophy only makes progress when it sheds another of its metaphysical layers and starts to metamorphasize into the finer crystallized elements of science. The philosophy of science becomes just the scientific method. Russell is really a scientist, a mathematician, who sees philosophy as precursor to his discipline, perhaps a logical antecedent, but one that needs to die. Much like chemistry had its roots in alchemy, and astronomy in astrology, so does science in philosophy. No wonder Socrates is sent to Purgatory!

Since our Superstar really does have an ax to grind, his writing is dynamic and pugnacious, bringing each philosopher to life in an animating contest of wills; swords crossed. How much more invigorating to see each philosopher in the heat of battle, rather than presented in long, arid ruminations in a stale lecture hall. What this book lacks in substance, it more than makes up for it in style and personality.

Rating:
Summary: Seriousness and Wit
Review: Philosophers take themselves far too seriously. Bertrand Russel is not an exception. In his own eyes, the book he would have kept for posterity would have been the Principia Mathematica, which was blown to bits by Godel's incompleteness theorem. Yet, while his own philosophy of Logical Atomism ran out of steam (and followers) by about the time he wrote this book, this book endures. In fact, he even won a Nobel Prize for it. And not without good reason.

Histories of Philosophy usually lack either seriousness (like Sophie's World, which is an adaptation of this book) or wit (like the Columbia History). Granted, Russel can't be trusted on any German after Kant, everything leading up to the 19th century rests on pretty secure footing. In fact, it is an indepedant study I took in high school based off of this and photocopies of primary sources that made it possible for me to stay afloat in a graduate course on Hegel at the University of Chicago my first year.

However, his treatment of philosophy after Kant has to be taken in context. Russel, however fair and objective you'd expect a philosopher to be, thought that his tradition of philosophy had more or less answered the big questions. That meant in exclusion of the Continental philosophers such as Jaspers, Husserl, and Heiddeger. Even his treatment of Analytic Philosophy ended with Whitehead, who was important in the very early part of the Century.

That leaves the exclusion of Kierkegaard, and the treatment of Hegel and Neitzsche. Kierkegaard only became important in the 20s and 30s in Continental philosphy, and only in the context of a Hegel renaissance, as a religious corollary. As for Hegel, it is not Russel's fault that Hegel was used as an excuse for right wing apologists for Bismark. In WWI, Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra was distributed along with the Bible to soldiers, (Hitler among them) and so it is not Russel's fault that he blames him for Hitler.

Russel admits that he based most of this book on the work of experts, and it was thrown together in quite a hurry. That it falls prey to the errors of its era is not surprising at all, what is surprising is how well this work has held up. In fact, it does. I still recommend it to my friends who are looking for a digestible introduction to the field, but of course with Caveats.