Rating: 
Summary: I'll keep it fundamental
Review: The details of the book display many things but one thing we all must conclude, everyone has their own philosophy, or biased opinion. That philosophy here, in these pages however does reflect upon supportive evidence, something I havent seen so much of in other opinions. Thats why this book is, where it is. I have read a great philosophy in another book that supports its opinion and I highly recommend reading Karl Mark Maddox, SB 1 or God
Rating: 
Summary: A good start for those new to philosophy.
Review: The first two thirds of the book, which covers Ancient and Catholic philosophy are excellent. Therin lies the value of the book. Russell's writing style is very easy to take, and he discusses (some) historical conditions that shaped the thinking at the time. The last portion, headed "Modern Philosophy" is somewhat uneven. That is perhaps due to the limited amount of space he devotes for each case. One gets the feeling that, for these more complex philosophies, he has been forced to condense the material to the point where a full understanding is lost. Russell does do a good job of following the Scientific / Enlightenment / Liberal / Utilitarian path. But his coverage of the Germanic school makes this reader wonder what all the fuss is about - they come off as practically insane, or at least highly illogical. Other commentators have noted Russell's positivist 'bias' as an explanation for this aspect of his work. That could be the case, or it may well be that the Hegelian school really is nuts. Only time will tell. Russell does spend quite a lot of time on Hume, yet little on John Stewart Mill. That is puzzling since induction is supposed to be the tonic that cures scepticism. I would have expected Russell to have said more on the subject. Also, readers should be aware that the history pretty much ends at 1900. There is no examination of Popper, the Vienna school, Godel, quantum 'reality', or other stimulating subjects from the early 20th century. As a result, the reader is left at the end of the book with the feeling that something is missing - and that more could (and should) be said. That said, Russell sprinkles his history with anecdotes and keeps the tone light. This is not a philosophy book that will put you to sleep. To repeat: his coverage of the Greek and Scholastics is quite good - and is justification alone for obtaining the book. The Modern (post 1600) philosophers get the 'once over lightly' treatment - useful as a starting point - but additional resources will be needed to fully examine those schools of thought. Don't let the carping about Russell's biases turn you off from this book. They are present, but are not outrageous, and they liven up the book. In moderation, a point of view helps keep the reader interested (e.g. Paul Johnson's Modern Times is quite stimulating precisely because he brings his conservative Catholic morals into the text - even if you don't agree with them).
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining lucidity
Review: There are many ways to understand the meaning of philosophy, but I believe Bertrand Russell himself had put it best: ÒIs there anything we can think of which, by the mere fact that we can think of it, is shown to exist outside of our thought? Every philosopher would LIKE to say yes, because a philosopherÕs job is to find out things about the world by thinking rather than observing. If yes is the right answer, there is a bridge from pure thought to things, if not, not.Ó Russell obviously had an eye to spot the bogus and Hegelians and Phenomenologists detest him for that. The dislike is mutual, I for my part can do perfectly well without Hegel, Heidegger and Derrida. I have a very wide reading in philosophy, but I stopped reading philosophy after I had finished with Kripke in the mid eighties. Since then I lean back and enjoy the show without engaging myself in any debate. But that much is apparent: of all philosophers from the 2oth century, Russell is probably the most educational and had been read by more lay-people than any other philosopher. Was that a bad thing? I would say definitely not. His book is still a good travel guide, written by a vociferous and independent mind and in a style of such clarity, that it canÕt help of sounding offensive especially to acolytes of oracular nonsense. Having said this, I too here and there would prod the old man for an injustice, say about Immanuel Kant or Schopenhauer. In KantÕs case however, I can appreciate that we look not only at a fundamental difference of opinion, but differences in competence. Bertrand RussellÕs own monumental contributions to mathematics and symbolic logic, entitle him to be a bit snobbish. KantÕs philosophy still employs a logical tool that seemed to have had barely advanced from Aristotle. It is a point only few critics ever raise, but Kant wasnÕt up to date even of the logical developments during his own era. So many points in his philosophy that seem to pertain to cognitive functions are actually not logical at all but belong to the set of generic conventions that seem to underpin our linguistic faculties. ItÕs an honest disagreement, and the greater authority is on RussellÕs side here. But he should have given more space to Charles Saunders Peirce, who, among many other things, picked up on KantÕs table of (basically Aristotelian) categories and put them into the context where they really belong. RussellÕs scant treatment of Peirce who with some justice had been called Òthe most original and the most versatile intellect that the Americas have so far producedÓ is not so easy to forgive. As for Schopenhauer I must say Russell, or his source, is just ill informed. Schopenhauer made his own valuable contributions to epistemology (see my review on SchopenhauerÕs ÒThe Fourfold RootÓ) which are of interest independently from SchopenhauerÕs more idiosyncratic views expressesed in his later works. In fact by temperament he and Russell had much in common, Schopenhauer being RusselÕs equally caustic and somewhat pigheaded Teutonic counterpart, and, like Russell, a great stylist in his language. If you want a more limited but more in debt overview on the history of philosophy in general up to SchopenhauerÕs time, then read SchopenhauerÕs essays ÒOn the Will in NatureÓ and his ÒPaerga and ParalipomenaÓ. Schopenhauer liked to see himself as standing on the shoulders of an illustrious line of philosophers since antiquity, the last link that lays the final stone. ÒEvery author creates his own pedigree,Ó says Borges, himself a great admirer of Schopenhauer, and Schopenhauer was very good at creating such pedigree for philosophical ideas and following their course through history. But the most telling omission is that of RussellÕs own protege: Ludwig Witgenstein. After a brief honeymoon the two headstrong philosophers went on a long journey of irreconcilable differences, and I canÕt help siding with Russell on this. Witgenstein is gravely overrated these days, but apart from his unpleasant personality and the airs of a latter day saint he contributed very little worth speaking of to philosphy proper. Russell has the grace and malicious charm of Voltaire, and like him he was a great popularizer and educator. His ÒHistory of Western PhilosophyÓ is worth every penny.
Rating: 
Summary: BAD HISTORY
Review: This "History" was a true disapointment. I had heard how wonderous this volume was, but upon reading it myself, I found it to be thoughly lacking in history and accurate depiction of the philosophers depicted. This has to be as bad as Durent's work on history of philosophy. I woudl give this book away, but I don't dislike anyone that much. Russell's depiction of previous philosphers was selfserving at best. All philosopher were to lead up to his philosophy. This books only should be used as a doorstop or tindling.
Rating: 
Summary: Should be more honest about enormous bias
Review: This book has an enormous positivist bias in the selection of the ideas and philosophers and in Russell's comments, and unfortunately many misrepresentations. This will be obvious to anyone well acquainted with the thought of idealist or theist philosophers. And this is quite understandable from Russell, given that his was during most of his life a staunch leftist and materialist activist, crusading against religion any form of morality. (although at the very end he strangely publicly admited that "I am ashamed of saying this, but we need Christian love", mabe because of WWII etc.). I am not disappointed in Russell writing this history of philossophy, it perfectly reflects his views. The problem is that he does not state his view, bias and may thereby mislead many readers. I think that he really ought to have called this book: "An atheist (or positivist) perspective on the history of philosophy", or have said something in the preface. That would have been clearer and more honest for those who do not know about Russell's strong activism and partisanship. I hope anyway that he did not write this book to mislead people. Anthony Kenny's history of philosophy is no better: it has also a strong bias (but idealist this time), but does not mention it either! The best history of philosophy remains, in my opinion, Frederick Copleston's nine volumes. It is big, but very serious, trying to give much attention to all philosophers instead of selecting his favorites. And although he honestly did not hide he was Christian but wrote clearly from the beginning that he was a Jesuit, he may have written the most balanced work. And this is why I prefer Copleston's history very much to Kenny's of Russell's. Or I still prefer the simple, unpretentious and short history of philo. by the postmodern Donald Palmer (Looking at philosophy). And he too is rather honest and does not hide that he is a postmodern skeptic and feminist.
Rating:
Summary: A TESTAMENT TO LORD RUSSELL'S HUGE BODY OF KNOWLEDGE
Review: This book is the best which I have read on Western philosophical thought,and it is proof of Lord Russell's incredible intellectual breadth. Also, the fact that it is amongst Amazon.com's top 6000 selling books, shows that the Western audience, which this book is mainly aimed at, includes a very large number of intellectuals, as this book is very heavy reading. Its definitely not something which you can read at one sitting. It is loaded with historical facts and figures. A brilliant peice of work.
Rating:
Summary: informative and entertaining history of Western philosophy
Review: This is a delightlfully entertaining history of Western philosophy starting from the ancient Greeks up to Russell's time. For each of the several philosophers covered, Russell gives a bit of biographical information and describes in several pages their contribution to philosophy. This part is mostly objective and informative. The writing style is superb. After the objective description, Russell devotes a few pages to a critique of the philosopher's work and a discussion of their importance. In addition to covering the major philosophers, Russell discusses historically important trends or changes that affected philosophy, e.g. the dominance of the catholic church, Greek mathematics, the rise of science, etc. As a lay person, I greatly appreciated the brief summaries of important philosophies in a clear and modern language. For example, I personally have no time to read Immanual Kant's huge and difficult-to-read book "The Critique of Pure Reason", so it is very useful to read a summary of this influential philosopher's ideas and to understand why he was influential. The only worry one might have is that Russell's account might be biased by his strong opinions. However, I believe Russell did a good job of separating his objective description of the philosopher's work from his own opinion of the merits of the work. Besides, the critical analysis adds greatly to the entertainment value and I happen to agree with most of Russell's very reasonable opinions.
This book would make an excellent gift to an intellectual friend or family member -- for anyone curious about the world and about the historical influences upon our Western outlook.
Rating:
Summary: informative and entertaining history of Western philosophy
Review: This is a delightlfully entertaining history of Western philosophy starting from the ancient Greeks up to Russell's time. For each of the several philosophers covered, Russell gives a bit of biographical information and describes in several pages their contribution to philosophy. This part is mostly objective and informative. The writing style is superb. After the objective description, Russell devotes a few pages to a critique of the philosopher's work and a discussion of their importance. In addition to covering the major philosophers, Russell discusses historically important trends or changes that affected philosophy, e.g. the dominance of the catholic church, Greek mathematics, the rise of science, etc. As a lay person, I greatly appreciated the brief summaries of important philosophies in a clear and modern language. For example, I personally have no time to read Immanual Kant's huge and difficult-to-read book "The Critique of Pure Reason", so it is very useful to read a summary of this influential philosopher's ideas and to understand why he was influential. The only worry one might have is that Russell's account might be biased by his strong opinions. However, I believe Russell did a good job of separating his objective description of the philosopher's work from his own opinion of the merits of the work. Besides, the critical analysis adds greatly to the entertainment value and I happen to agree with most of Russell's very reasonable opinions.
This book would make an excellent gift to an intellectual friend or family member -- for anyone curious about the world and about the historical influences upon our Western outlook.
Rating:
Summary: Amusing and Informative
Review: This is a fantastic reference book. I bought the "Great Minds of the Western Intellectual Tradition," a series of high quality lectures produced by TeachCo.com, and I used Russell's book as a supplement. It turned out to be a great way to learn about philosophy. I really enjoyed the fact that Russell gives his opinion rather than trying to be artificially objective. My favorite part, that actually had me laughing (laughing at a philosophy book!), was the bit about what Buddha and Nietzsche would each say to the Almighty when asked to give advice about what sort of world He should create. Buddha would go first, then Nietzsche would respond to the Buddha's arguments. Russell writes, "Nietzsche, whom only Omnipotence could restrain from interrupting, would burst out when his turn came: 'Good heavens, man, you must learn to be of tougher fibre. Why go about snivelling because trivial people suffer? Or, for that matter, because great men suffer? Trivial people suffer trivially, great men suffer greatly...'" The book is very readable. Unfortunately, it was published in 1945, so it does not cover important modern figures such as Foucault, Heidegger, Derrida, etc., but it still absolutely worth owning.
Rating:
Summary: An exquisite and inspiring chronicle of Western Philosophy
Review: This is a seminal and elegantly written volume which showcases Russell at his best. It avoids much of the pedantic dryness and/or painful polemic which burdens some of his other books, while maintaining the compelling critical insight which is often (and in my view rightly) considered to be Russell's trademark. Specialists have often charged the History's treatment of various philosophers as being less than adequate, but the concluding sentence in Russell's preface concedes as much, and offers an apology in advance. His intent is to provide a deliberately broad (though essentially sound) account of major Western philosophers, the social circumstances which moulded them, and the impact their thought has had on subsequent generations. His remarkable success easily justifies the attempt. A delicious read.
|
