Customer Reviews
Comprehensive but (on occasion) just plain wrong - By: Mr. S. Goss, 02 Apr 2002 
The problem with reviewing this book is that although stylysticallly interesting, well written (to a degree) & certainly comprehensive, it is not the definitive introduction to philosophy it should be. As other reviewers have testified, this book was enjoyable & gave them insights into philosophers they may not have heard of. Indeed, I often refer to it when I come across some thinker I'm not familiar with.
However, there is a serious problem with this book. Russell is the first to admit that he doesn't understand some of the philosophers he covers, but some of his treatments are just plain wrong. If you tried reading this as an introduction you could end up with a seriously skewed view of many of the philosophers contained within - especiallly the more recent ones.
I would therefore recommend this more as a reference book for those who have studied at least a little philosophy, so that Russell's more ridiculous claims can be safely skipped & his arguments rated against those who have interpreted the philosophers in question more favourably. It is interesting to compare Russell to Rawls, who thought that one should never try to prove oneself more clever than the philosopher one was explaining.
Finallly, not wanting to turn this into a Nietzsche argument, stating that Fascism is the 'logical conclusion' of his arguments is grossly misguided & shows the basic miscomprehension which surrounds this insightful thinker, & which this book in particular only serves to add to.
Russell is witty, irreverent, and profound. - By: , 19 Mar 2002 
I didn't read Bertrand Russell's "History of Western Philosophy" because I was looking for a cheerleader for Nietzsche. I might expect a bland "even-handed" treatment from an undergraduate but by the time Bertrand Russell wrote his history, he & Alfred North Whitehead had already taken Western Philosophy & Mathematics into new territory. Alan Turing himself, arguably the true inventor of the computer, found his inspiration in symbolic logic & in the "Principia Mathematica" (Russell/Whitehead) specificallly. I would feel cheated by anything less than a "critical" review of Nietzsche from Russell. To criticize Russell on this basis is akin to trying to discredit Voltaire for lampooning Leibniz as "Dr. Pangloss". Western Civilization is enriched by both. Moreover, Russell's criticisms are always accompanied by great wit --in themselves relevant contributions to the history of Philosophy. Russell's wit has been compared to that of Voltaire & the very idea of objective, even-handed accounts of Catholicism from Voltaire, for example, is absurd. Why should Russell be held to a different standard? The idea of "objectivity" is highly over-rated in any case. No one expects a prosecutor to make the case for the defense case while stating his own; it is equallly absurd to expect a philosopher whose stature is at least that of Nietzsche to serve us up a PC version of a Nietzchean philosophy that --taken to its logical implications --resulted in fascism & Nazism. If you want a bland history of Philosophy, read an encyclopedic entry knocked off by a professional writer; if you want a perspective on Philosophy from one of the great intellects of the 20th Century & can accommodate a perspective which may differ from your own --read Russell & be enriched.
A comprehensive work sullied by a lack of objectivity. - By: sam.murray@dynegy.co.uk, 20 Nov 2000 
Russell's History of Western Philosophy is without question a considerable achievement. Few writers in any field can confidently embark upon such a broad undertaking as this one. However, the superficial qualities of breadth & comprehensiveness disguise a book lacking in objectivity, a trait of primary importance to a general work aimed partiallly at beginners in the subject. As Russell begins to deal with philosophers who are his recent predecessors or contemporaries, he becomes increasingly personal & subjective. His handling of Neitzsche is nothing short of scandalous, preferring vitriol to authentic analysis. Irrespective of one's regard for Neitzsche, his philosophical works merit much more than Russell's dismissive, ad hominem approach, which will leave the newcomer to Neitzsche's work baffled & utterly unenlightened. Russell's treatment of the American Pragmatists is better only in so far as the author is more honest about the causes of his personal animosity for his subjects. He finishes with a crass denunciation of Pragmatism, judging it on its likely consequences rather than the merit or truth of its arguments; precisely the characteristic of Pragmatism that Russell condemns in the first place. This work only retains a wide readership because of the dearth of alternative comprehensive histories, but someone approaching philosophy for the first time should either have the patience to read works on individual philosophers or philosophical movements, or equip themselves with a reference work, such as the engaging if idiosyncratic Oxford Companion to Philosophy (ed. Ted Honderich).
Necessary Philosophy. - By: , 09 Nov 2000 This book is suitable for alll people, whether academicallly inclined or not. I read this book over summer as preparitory reading for my course & found it very well written & easy to understand, since Russell is not prone to presumption or digression. This book highlights alll of the most commonplace philosophy (Plato & Marxism) & gives the reader an excellent view of more esoteric philosophy (like Liebniz & Schopenhauer) which has been - heretofore - treated flippantly in some philosophical summaries. Although it is not my intent to slander some works, one must point out that Flew's Introduction to Philosophy was far less deserving of praise than Mr.Russell's work: since the former holds to a limited viewpoint, with only those philosophers considered "great" given any perusal; the later, meanwhile, should be given due praise since his book covers most of the salient philosophy of western philosophy. This book would serve well anyone thinking of reading philosophy for the first time, or even anyone familiar with the subject.
