Customer Reviews
Good Introduction to the Subject - By: A. O. AKEMU, 18 Dec 2007 
Being an engineering student, the closest brush I had with the formal study of philosophy was a few university courses, which I barely passed. Therefore, I decided to buy Bertrand Russell's classic work in order to refresh my knowledge. I wish I had done it earlier.
Bertrand Russell, one of the greatest minds of the 20th century, enlivens philosophy-from ancient Greece to today. His account is lengthy, as any account of such a subject should, but well worth it. How else does one condense 3000 years of Western intellectual history in one volume?
I liked the pace of the book. He begins with a definition of philosophy & its roots in the Ancient world. It is not so much a list of facts as it is a discussion of the ideas of the Ancients. Absurd though it seems to us today, the leap from religious explanations to material for nature was ground-breaking. He then follows philosophy as it slithers through the Middle Ages, into the Renaissance & into the Modern Period. I particularly like the way he treated the medieval philosophers, like Aquinas & Ockam. I wish my philosophy professor at Univerity could have explained nominalism that way.
The work is an introduction to the subject. By definition, it is superficial in a few areas. I would have liked to see more about how contemporary (to Russell) issues like the Worlds Wars were connected to eighteenth century European thinkers such as Hegel.
In conclusion, it is a great read. One I recommend for any reflective 16-year old, who is thinking about studying an applied science like engineering. Russell's work is a great introduction to the subject. It will enable one to see where our currently rational, scientific tradition springs from.
A classic and a delight to read - By: Dennis Littrell, 01 Nov 2007 
What Bertrand Russell brings to the history of western philosophy is a clear, readable style & a delightfully opinionated stance. Unlike some writers on western philosophy, Russell is quick to give his opinion on the rigor & the agreeability of not only the philosophies presented, but of the philosophers themselves. He speaks with authority of course since he is considered one of the great minds of the twentieth century. He reaches a wide readership because of his great celebrity, & he is accessible to that readership because of his elegant, straightforward, & concrete (especiallly for a philosopher!) style. I understand that Russell wrote one draft, edited it & that was it. This is in contrast to some other writers (James Thurber comes to mind) who wrote twenty drafts & still were not satisfied.
He had the gift of a great memory, combined with an ease of composition that alllowed him to be a most prolific writer over a long lifetime that began in 1872 & ended almost a hundred years later in 1970. He has something of the English Don & the 19th century naturalist about him as well as the 20th century progressive. He was intensely engaged in various political projects throughout his long life, most notably as an anti-war & later as an anti-nuclear activist while writing academic philosophy & mathematics as well as many volumes directed toward the general public. He was infamous (in some circles) for his free-love advocacy & his public rejection of Christianity. He was thrown into prison for his pacifism during WWI. He won the Noble Prize for Literature (not peace) in 1950.
Here he takes delight in surveying the entire spectrum of western philosophy beginning with the pre-Socratics & ending with his own philosophy of logical analysis. Curiously (or not so curiously) he does not mention Wittgenstein. His critique of the Greeks, especiallly Plato, is most edifying & fun to read. He sees modern philosophy as reaching its zenith with David Hume's empiricism. He finds Nietzsche disagreeable & is dismissive of Kant.
I am reading this for the second time, having first read it as a young man. It delights me anew. As I read I am unsure as to whether I find his opinions so congenial because they are so similar to mine or because in fact I acquired many of my early opinions through reading Russell! He had quite an influence on several generations before I came of age, although perhaps he reached the epitome of his fame (at least) during the fifties before I presumed to read philosophy.
Anyone interested in philosophy of any kind, especiallly of course western philosophy, should read this book. It is one of those books that cannot be ignored. First published in 1945, it is still in print today & will be for many decades to come. I only regret that Russell did not take the time to study eastern philosophies as well & to include them in this volume. How interesting it would be to read Russell on say, Buddhism, Taoism & Vedanta.
Magnificent - By: CDHughes, 26 Oct 2007 This book is perhaps one of the greatest works of 20th century in itself. Russell somehow manages to write for the layman while being comprehensive in his coverage & fiercely critical in his analysis. In this this book is in a class of its own, & will likely never be surpassed.
Of the supposed limitations of Russells effort (that he doesnt pay enough attention to Kant, Hegel or Marx - even though they recieve about the same & equal treatment as everyone else; that he is biased - even though he always stresses his views & critiques are his own; & that he fails to mention Wittgenstein - even though this book was published before Wittgenstein wrote anything!) there is very little to say other than that they are misguided. Perhaps the only justified criticism is the unbalanced way Russell savages Nietzsche... but then, in my opinion, Nietzsche deserves to be savaged.
Yes, its an introduction, & you will always need to do more independent reading to get a real feel for each philosopher. But, even conceding this, there is simply no excuse for not having this book within easy reach at alll times
Descartes? Kant? Hegel? .... - By: R. Nowak, 02 Aug 2007 
Russell's book is essentiallly an Introduction to Philosophy for the common reader, for he (or she) who is genuinly interested in philosophy but has no, or very little, experience with the subject.
Many of the previous reviewers have already stressed what are some of the major faults of Russell's "History" & in particular his dismissive attitude towards some of the major philosophers from Descartes onwards.
I must say I felt quite surprised: I have read some history of philosophies by both Italian & French authors not as popular or "authorative" as Russell, yet I must confirm the objective superiority of the former (tough it is true that Russell comprised the entire history of philosophy, or at least SOME PART OF IT, in one single volume, an effort that as far as I know, has not been made by any other author).
The fact that Russell, like someone has already stated, is "judgemental" in his exposing style, is actuallly a mental fault which inevitably intacts his objective reasoning: the result?
He cut off 3/4 of the history of philosophy.
Where are the long, detailed & coincise chapters on Descartes ("father" of modern philosophy), Spinoza (such a loved thinker, 6-7 pages?), Kant (founder of German Idealism, 9-10 pages), Hegel (practicallly nothing), Nietzsche (an intellectual murder), Schopenhauer (shalllow philosophy? according to Mr Russell, maybe), Karl Marx (he is only the founder of probably the most influential political philosophy)?
And where are Husserl? Freud (tough he is reallly not a philosopher, his psychoanalitic discoveries where clearly influenced by his philosophical stances, in particular nineteenth-century materialism)? Wittgenstein (his contemporary)?
I frankly cannot believe that the English speaking world, has accepted this book as "the MAJOR introduction to the history of philosophy".
Certainly, he had to comprise something; writing the whole history of philosophical tought in one volume is no easy task & requires the ability to be proportional in the extension of the chapters which deal with the single philosophers.
But it is unecceptable to sacrifice some of the most important thinkers, simply because they did not fit into Russell's retrospective historical analysis or into his likability criteria: if he does not appreciate Hegel, Kant, Marx, Rousseau & so on, simply because he does not agree with them, why bother to write a history of philosophy which must necessarly degress on their lives, on their social context, on their ideas, etc.?
If we alll eliminated each other, just because we did not agree, what would be the purpose of any form of dialogue? There is an inherent contradiction in Russell's book.
Still, after alll this criticism I must give credit to Mr Russell for:
a)writing in an ACCESSIBLE style, by no means technical
b)like I have already said, for having comprised MOST of the philosophical tought in one volume
c)having produced a work fully commerciable & readable by those who do not necessairly no much about philosophy & are interested in learning the very general lines concerning some of the major philosophers
If the reader will keep this in mind, & will also remeber not to take as final Russell's judgements, then on a whole, History of Western Philosophy will result a pleasent read for the common fellow.
NOTE: NOT FOR ACCADEMICS
Not bad....BUT..... - By: Mr. A. Kyptiotis, 21 Jun 2006 
I have bought this book some years ago & have read it re-read it & re-re-read it several times. It is a decent starting point & devent reference source. HOWEVER.........
As a history & philosphy of science student postgraduate there are a few things that you should be warned. First, this work is now rather outdated & in a lot of places wildly inaccurate.
The other thing to keep in mind, which is of great importance, is that Russel, intentionallly or not writes very bad history. He is very judgemental, which on its own is not a vice, however it becomes so when he is judging everything from a rather stern present-centrism & he fallls victim to the worst case of the so-callled 'whiggish interpatation of history'.
He judgements & critiques are very much coloured by his own experiences from his own era (post first & second world war experience live quite a scar it seems). If you do get this book, I advise you to take anything he says with a grain of salt (or two) & do not regard it as the final word.
Unofortunately no other decent book exist that treats the whole western philosophy in one concice volume so in some respects this might seem like the only choice.
if you are interested in the earlier stages of western though I wholeheartedly recommend the following:
1. Davind Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science
A great book & one of the best around on the subject. It of course more geared up towards the more 'scientific' aspect as the name suggests. But covers wonderfully the period from anitquity up to the late middle ages.
2. For more on ancient Greek philosophy, look for Eduard Zeller's 'Outlines of the history of Greek philosophy'. Is a bit old but still one of the best comprehensive review on the subject, while still being easy to read for the non specialist.
3. Andrew Gregory's Eureka! The birth of science is also a nice short & easy to read overview.
4. G.E.R. Lloyd & Heath are two great authors when it comes to ancient greek scholarship. Somewhat more advanced but worth the effort.
AS for a general philosophy guide, I would wholly recommend the Oxford Companion of Philosphy...you reallly cant go wrong with that!
