The History of Western Philosophy

I'm almost 40 and I've been mildly curious about philosophy throughout my adult life. Unfortunately, I had yet to read anything meaningful about it, because all the previous attempts to educate myself were thwarted by the pretentiousness of all the authors I had tried to read on the topic; I suspect one can't be accepted in this field if they speak like human beings. History of Western Philosophy, however, is different: even non-experts can read this introductory book! How amazing is that? On top of that, Russell has a delicious whimsical side to him, which transpires in this book just enough for the occasional comic relief. Although an atheist himself, he does show the necessary formal reverence to religious matters as avoid offending anyone (in fact, he even uses the appropriate jargon regarding heathens, heretics and the such, although I believe most of it is tongue in cheek). Apart from all that (which was the critical part for me), the book is obviously well respected, and it's remarkably thorough (which means you shouldn't be concerned with the content's verity or its coverage of the topic). Speaking of thoroughness, I'm quite happy that I happened upon it in digital format, because I later realized how thick the paper version must be, and that I would most likely have been intimidated by it to the point of not buying the book in the first place. The Kindle version does have a few OCR problems (typically spaces missing between words), but they're few and far apart enough not to become any meaningful hindrance to fluid reading. UPDATE: I finally finished reading the book, and I wanted to add a few things specifically for novices like myself. If you're a newcomer to philosophy AND you're just a casual reader, expect that you won't be able to understand everything, and that you will remember much less than what you understand. This is important in two ways. On one hand, knowing this, you shouldn't get discouraged when you don't understand something as well as you'd want to: you'd probably forget it anyway, so just keep on reading -- the important thing is to get an overall idea, not to remember every little detail (which is anyway impossible). On the other hand, the fact that you'll unavoidably forget a lot of stuff is quite unfortunate, because after you finish with the Antics, the cross-references become increasingly more important and relevant. So I suggest that, if your reading habits allow it, you might want to jot down a few words about each philosopher IMMEDIATELY after finishing each chapter; you probably wouldn't need more that two or three phrases with what you found most distinctive about that person, so you can later remember more about each of them at a glance. Having said all that, expect that in the end you'll leave with maybe 10% of what you've been reading -- and that's if you're lucky. But that's ok: what matters is that you leave with an understanding of what philosophy is really all about, and that you will definitely get. Plus, you'll certainly be able to place almost any Western philosopher in roughly the right period, you'll develop likes and dislikes, and you'll end up with a much better understanding of what and why it is that Western philosophers have been doing what they've been doing for the past few thousand years. And let's be honest: what more can you hope for?

Should have known from the name, but the focus is more on the history than the philosophy. You notice a definite lull through the dark ages, but the Hellenistic and the modern sections are still very interesting. For a philosophic historian though, I often felt Russell was combative and even deliberately obtuse in his arguably unnecessary responses to each famous philosopher's work. The book is called "history of philosophy," not "Bertrand Russell on why everyone is wrong but him." He did make me laugh a few times though, which was not expected.

Bertrand Russell. The man was a giant. Philosopher, historian, nobel laureate, activist unto his death, and now posthumous comic-book hero[1]. He was an Earl. He rewrote most of mathematics, but considered that a failure, as he aimed at reworking the basis of all thought. Even there, he was only foiled by some Austrian proving it to be impossible. By all accounts, a warm and charming man. Very tall, as well. A giant. This is his book about those giants whose shoulders he stood on. The book covers about two thousand five hundred years of smart people saying reasonably smart things (most the time). This is done in a dry and British fashion. It was the first work of academic philosophy I had read. I was 16. I was on my friend's couch. It was summer. I killed it in a week or so -- that's not a brag, it goes quickly because it's clear and clever. Russell clearly enjoyed writing it. I loved reading it. I was hooked. A bit later, I ended up with a highly marketable bachelor's degree in philosophy, and a set of cognitive tools that better prepared me for the myriad of random things I've had to do to eat (such as: children's parties, graphic design for a porn site, wearing a Cash4Gold sign while jumping, and software engineering) than any *real* coursework could have done. And I thank Bertie for his part in that. Since I've walked that road on the cover, too, I can say I agree with the other learned reviewers that Russell makes no effort to be balanced. I had a VERY Catholic upbringing, and I was a bit surprised at his outright hostility to the great doctors of the church. Like, Augustine, he was a pretty okay bloke, you know? He was the only one I liked! (Still, I have to admit I was both honestly surprised *and* vindictively pleased -- as you might expect of a 16-year-old boy. Yeah Bertie! Stick it too 'em! I wanna go drink Zima and catch crabs like St. A, but they won't let me!) I also agree it gets a bit ponderous as it creeps toward modernity. Gone are the days of our public intellectuals jumping into volcanos to prove their godhood. In exchange we get John Dewey, mostly famous for inventing a slightly better system for cataloging libraries. Alas and alack! So I clearly love the book. It's like an extremely eccentric uncle: acerbic, vastly opinionated, but even when you're 16 and think old people are merely repositories for funny smells, you still realize he says really, *actually* profound things between the rants about the Capitalists and the Imperialists. At the end of the day, this is an imperfect work of *philosophy* we're talking about. The whole point is to self-referentially explore our own knowledge, ruthlessly hunting for fallacies, failings, and pedantic technicalities, all whilst sipping slowly upon a snifter of brandy near the fireplace in your study. As an introduction, I think perhaps we're all the better off for Bertie's flaws. They give the novice something to chew on. They did a good job getting a 16-year-old to think. [1] Search up "Logicomix: An Epic Search for Truth" for another fun traversal of western history involving The Right Honourable The Earl Russell, OM, FRS.

Russell delivers an interesting and stimulating read of philosophy from Ancient Greece to, what was then, the modern age (~1945). For those looking for history, there is a great deal here, but you more often will get Russell's own view on the philosophy he is reviewing rather than a historically neutral explanation. Russell views things from a scientific-empirical perspective, and so his critiques of all the philosophies he reviews should be read in this light. Still, I found Russell to be interesting and he would fairly point out problems with ideas in many of his critiques of past philosophies. He does sometimes appear to be too critical in my opinion, but he usually gives his "opponent's" view first without denigrating it, and here he is often more charitable. Mostly, though, it does provide interesting information, and Russell is a great writer. He writes in amusing ways, and always tries to be clear (a goal that I don't always find in philosophy writing). I can't give it a full 5 star rating because Russell's biases in writing sometimes cause him to be overly critical in areas I have more intimate knowledge of, and I fear he may not give the most comprehensive viewpoint for other areas I am less knowledgeable about. This is not to say he said wrong things, just that he could have been more charitable in interpretation. Overall, I think it is worthy of a read if you are interested in a general overview of philosophy in the Western World. You should always realize that Russell has his own strong viewpoint here, and that he doesn't try to say nor is this an objective, neutral history. With that caveat, the writing is fun to read, and I very much enjoyed it. (Other than the chapter on Henri Bergson).

It took a while before I finally finished "The History of Western Philosophy." There is a lot of history and Bertrand Russell covers a lot of history very quickly and briefly and still the book is 900 pages thick. That said, it was well written and not too hard to read. The hardest for me was to keep track of all the relationships explained. To truly understand all of them, I'd need to read it a couple more times. Summarizing "The History of Western Philosophy" is not possible in a book review and I won't attempt it. One important topic in this book is that it is as much "history" as "Philosophy" Thus at the times where there was less important contributions to the field of philosophy, the author still summarizes the history that happened and how that influenced later philosophers. In fact, how the history influenced philosophy and how philosophy influenced history is a key theme throughout the book. Russell shows has they are intertwined and caused each other. The book has three large parts (each about 300 pages). They are 1) Ancient (mostly Greek) Philosophy, 2) Catholic Philosophy, and 3) Modern Philosophy. The book is chronological with sometimes forward references and a lot of backward references. Of all the philosophies, most of the time is spend on the Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle philosophies as their influence is so huge. Even though Bertrand Russell is quite critical of them and considers them overvalued... I guess he contributes to that by focusing on it much again :) That said, it is also a central theme that Bertrand Russell is not shy whatsoever to give his own opinion about the philosophies, changing his book partly to the philosophies of Bertrand Russell. That also means that if you are looking for a neutral summary of philosophers, then this book is not it. The opinions of the author did probably made the book more readable and accessible as it is at times as if he joins the philosophical discussion... except that the other philosophers are not able to argue back to Bertrand Russell. Unfair... I thoroughly enjoyed the History of Western Philosophy. It was thorough in breath though sometimes shallow in depth. That caused me to learn a huge amount about history and the role of philosophy. For anyone interested in that and not bothered by the lack of neutrality, this book is highly recommended. For people looking for a practical book, this is not it.

This was a truly spectacular book and I rate it a solid 5 stars. I liked it much more than Will Durant’s acclaimed The Story of Philosophy, and equally as much as Leonard Peikoff’s History of Philosophy lectures. I like to think of this book as “a history of Western thought.” Russell profiles and summarizes every philosopher and philosophical movement from Thales to John Dewey and his own school of logical analysis. Each chapter was clear and interesting. I found Kant, Hegel, and Bergson less clear than other chapters, but that may just be because those philosophers themselves are hard to grasp. Russel didn’t just report on how ideas changed and impacted society, he also explained the history and workings of society in each period. I found this especially helpful for the first book about ancient philosophy and the second about the medieval ages. I also really loved how detailed Russell was in his analysis and retelling of the history of the Church. All of that was completely new to me, and I didn’t know how much I was missing by not delving into Church history! Also, I gotta say, his chapters on Rousseau, Berkeley, and Byron were exceptional. I loved the letters exchanged between Rousseau and Voltaire (I literally laughed out loud reading them). Berkeley was clearer than he’s ever been before. And even though I was never interested in Byron previously, Russell intrigued me with his description of him. I’ve already added some of his poems to my Kindle to check out! Usually long books annoy me. This one didn’t. Every sentence felt absolutely necessary, and I was often left with wanting to know more about each figure, idea, and period! Russell occasionally injected his opinion or brought up inconsistencies within the philosophies he was describing, but not nearly enough for my tastes. It was always very obvious when he was commenting as himself and when he was describing or speaking for the philosopher he was writing about though, which was great. Overall, this was an excellent survey of Western philosophy. It was great as an introduction to the ideas of these thinkers, as well as a “history of Western thought” like I mentioned at the beginning of this review. If you want something that goes deeper into the philosophies of some of these thinkers, check out Leonard Peikoff’s History of Philosophy. If you’re more interested in the history aspect, you can check out Will Durant’s Story of Philosophy . (I think Russell’s book is complimentary yet slightly superior to Durant’s.) I highly recommend this book, and the Audible version narrated by Jonathan Keeble.

It amazes me that some people have given this book a low rating. I know that among professional philosophers this is not considered a great book, but that's probably because Russell makes the ideas clear and fun instead of using jargon to make things seem more complicated that they really are. Before you read this book you should be sure of your motives. If you want an introduction that is more of a textbook, then this is not the book for you. If you want an objective survey, again, you should go somewhere else. I must say though, do you really buy a book written by Russell not expecting to read what he had to say about the issues at hand? Finally, if you want a detailed review of some specific philosopher then you will be disappointed if you read this book. With that out of the way let me say who I think this book is for: everyone who wants to read about philosophy and enjoy it. Russell's style is truly unmatched by any other philosopher, while at the same time respecting the reader's intelligence. In this book Russell connects the philosophers to the time and space which they occupied thus shedding light on why some of them thought the way they did. This book can easily pass as a brief review of history because there are whole sections dedicated to describing the political atmosphere at specific times. Russell's comments about some philosophers made me laugh. I loved the part on Rousseau although Russell was extremely harsh. I believe that Russell has a love/hate relationship with Plato, therefore the section about Plato was the best in my opinion. I also liked it when Russell said that he doesn't understand a certain part of Kant's philosophy. If he can't understand it, what can the rest of us say? I really liked the fact that he included a small section on Islamic philosophy even though I disagree with his assessment in that area. All in all, a beautiful book that you should read if you want to: -Have fun -Study philosophy -Read Russell -All of the above

Bertrand Russell wrote A History of Philosophy with posterity in mind. Written during the exigencies of the Second World War, Russell gives preponderance to the history of philosophy in the West. From the pre-Socratics to John Dewey, Russell chronicles Western philosophy with inimitable analysis, wit and passion. It's not exhaustive by any means, but as a one volume treatment of philosophical culture in the West, it's pretty much perfect. Russell, more than anything else, was a great reformer and thought education to be essential to our species. Russell abhorred the orthodoxy of higher education as a system reserved only for the arcane and the privileged; philosophy was something to be cherished and openly exchanged, free from impunity and social barriers. Russell's judicious balance of erudition and accessibility shows on every page. The only time it feels arrhythmic is when Russell conflates the political dynamism of his era with the days of antiquity. Reference to this can be found in his synthesis of Rousseau/Hitler or Locke/Churchill. Other than that, I have no qualms with Russell's illustration of philosophy in the West. Russell also has the potential to positively surprise you, as well. Those I expected to be cannon fodder (Hobbes, Rousseau, Hegel, Mill, Marx, etc.) are reviewed with considerable objectivity and restraint. Russell clearly prioritizes certain systems over others, logic and empiricism, for example, elicit greater intellectual stimulus than, say, metaphysics. This isn't to suggest that Russell's preferences suspend his ability to cogently and consistently define the changes in epistemology, just an observation that he's not detached in the same way that defines the body of academic writing. It also has to be said that the text is a very handy reference point for any student of philosophy. This is an excellent one volume treatment of Western philosophy written by a brilliant man, who clearly respected his readers enough not to cloak his work in impenetrable prose. Highly recommended.

This book is wise and clever and dry and witty and challenging and entertaining . . . and at times it is even humorous. There are more concise listings you can read of who said what, where and when but few that will place the facts of how the ideas we still debate today came to be, came to hold sway, came to be such a critical part of all of our lives whether we know it or not, whether we have any idea at all about some any or all of them. They so thoroughly permeate our lives, how we look at our world, how our world gets presented to us, how we look at each other - family, friends, our countrymen, refugees, foreigners, aliens and gods, and even at ourselves, that to look away from a work such as this is a folly, a sin of omission as those nasty nuns tried to beat into me. Instead of reading this, many of us would prefer a preacher or a guru or a parent figure to walk us through some system of thinking which they generally sell as a formula for living, as a manual for what to think and how to act, and in doing this we so often sell ourselves and the rest of the people on the planet way, way short of the truth. We notice it easily when we see ordinary good people joining up as Jehova's Witnesses, as scientologists, as yoga devotees, as Catholics or as Protestants. We "get it" when we see people living by the words of those who make grandiose claims for the Koran or the Bible, the Torah or the Book of Morman. But we generally don't get it at all when it comes to whatever beliefs we have grown in to ourselves, because like most people, our beliefs are more explored and mined for further possibilities, rather than critically examined. Bertrand Russell is arguably the greatest logician and philosopher, and possibly even the greatest mathematician, of the twentieth century and this is no mean feat in a century where ideas were published and distributed like no other. Even now we can see great swathes of the world who have not yet adapted to this relatively recent world of easily available ideas, where the censorious notions of "being offended" or "blasphemy" or "incitement" are over played to stifle debate. I am not saying that we should stand by and allow hate speech, or incitement to hate crimes, or that we should live in a world that feels it must ridicule all ridiculous ideas, but we have to allow and actively promote the study of ideas different from our own and we should be prepared to put any ideas we put out there as having applicability beyond our own lives to the test of unhindered public scrutiny. The problem comes when the scrutiny itself relies on cherished beliefs rather than rigorous debate, logic and philosophical insight. Make no mistake, you have an abundance of theory and philosophy in your life. You couldn't set your watch or pat your cat without theory to inform your practice. A lot of what we do is all mapped out through repetition and our brain's capacity to file things i place for . . . so we don't after a certain young age have to think about where we should put the spoon or the cup or the toilet tissue. It's automatic. We can think about other things while we drink a hot coffee without scalding ourselves by mistaking our ear for our mouth. But disturbingly in the post Bill Clinton era of KISS (keep it simple stupid), where sound bites shape our news and current affairs, and were "txting has rplced wrting and eevn spleling", and we way too often trade off being concise for something that is really just being approximate and too often plainly stupid. if we keep it up for much longer, and the signs are fairly beak, this urge to act on minimal information, to avoid complexity, to slag off at things and people and ideas we do not really understand, to purge what little we think we know on talk back radio, while we listen to other tossers doing the same, to delight in our own shorthand take on almost everything that might actually matter, from how we treat refugees to how we give massive tax breaks to the rich, we will yet see large parts of our planet become uninhabitable. And the weak minded journalists and commentators who profit handsomely from it all lead a chorus of ignorant, fearful, simple-minded climate change deniers into our collective oblivion!. I will defend your right to believe what you want, but unlike Voltaire, I draw the line at having to die as a consequence of your scientific illiteracy and your intellectual arrogance. It's the situation we find ourselves in when so many people turn to radio shock jocks and often highly prejudiced print columnists to get answers to critical scientific questions, rather than turning to our scientists who are fighting for airspace. Our scientists have the difficult task of struggling to reduce highly complex arguments to ideas we can get our heads around, but which then often become absurdly knock-able. The widespread of laziness hiding behind the KiSS principle has long appalled me. Once you reduce complex ideas to what they are not . . . simple ideas . . . you betray the truth to convenience and to sound bites. So here it is. A challenge. Read this book, not with a view to demolishing it with your current cherished prejudices, and take whatever time you need to come to terms with the panoramic intellectual journey on which Russell will lead you. Your reward may be an increased dissatisfaction with the shallow KISS level of public debate, but you will at least know something worth knowing about the struggle of good men and women over millennia who have tried to walk us out of the dark places where stupidity lurks, where prejudice reigns, where we sanction harming our fellow travellers rather than have our own intolerance too challenged or exposed. I imagine many people will find this book difficult at different levels, and clearly some who have review it wrote ill of it or make it out to be less than it is in order to soften its challenge to their own belief systems. Approach it for the history of western thought, realise that other non-Western traditions of thought have also developed, and you will emerge from it grateful to Bertrand Russell for living and thinking and bothering to share such an encyclopaedic mind. Russell has a highly developed sense of the human condition, of how unfair it is and of the ways in which ideas on social justice have arisen and been resisted, abused and sometimes actually succeeded. He wrote this magnificent book without the benefit we all have derived from the work of that other truly great Briton, Alan Turing, the inventor of the computer. Anyone whose mind could span such a wide universe of ideas, arguments, counter arguments and often complex propositions, and put it into a readable single volume without resorting to Wikipedia or the moron-making KISS principal, deserves to be read and valued for what is a monumental contribution to the life of anyone who reads it. And a footnote. You can download it for free from various sites because it is out of copyright but you will soon learn that it has not been typeset as a free publication. You will almost certainly be downloading a scan which has been made using an optical character recognition program . . . and so, on every second page or so you will need to sort out a typo, which will have arisen because the inking or typesetting or printing of the original was not 100% perfect. It becomes very imperfect and tiring trying to read a scanned copy and my very strong recommendation is that you PAY for a copy that comes from a current publisher who will ensure that your hardcopy, or your download, is not only inexpensive but is all that you would want for such a brilliant book.

Finally I could buy a soft-cover copy of this book ! I bought it for my father who is voracious reader and has a thing for philosophy. Everything was perfect from packaging to in-time delivery. Thumbs up to Amazon !

söylendiği gibi ve zamanında geldi.

Bertrand Russell is in My Opinion unique! This Book is a Bible simply saying. A Rare and True Contribution To Mankind. This Book Will always Be My Bedtime Reading.

Das beste Buch zum Einstieg in die Philosophie bis zum Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts, das ich kenne!