Learn more Download now Shop now Learn more Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Learn More Shop now Shop now

on 10 November 2017
Nothing compares to it. The definitive book for anyone wishing to have a comprehensive overview of Western philosophy. While not a difficult read (try Geertz!) it is also not one for those that like to just skim through things. It is best read in 2 or 3 hour slots, each one covering a chapter (or two). Then rest and absorb. Repeat. Once done from end to end, it then becomes an excellent quick reference book, should you need to look something up. It is also (I believe) the most read philosophy book in the world, being a standard for many first year university courses.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 10 July 2017
Top class. He gives philosophical and wider cultural and historical background to each topic, he throws in some poetry. He compares philosophies and critiques them, sometimes scathingly and almost always respectfully. The book is highly entertaining and informative.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 2 August 2017
An excellent book though now dated (it was written in 1943), especially in the last century covered! Many personal view points made, sometimes suitably offhand! After this you are ready to look more thoroughly at the most interesting philosophers.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 26 November 2017
vital to your detgree and life
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 29 October 2017
good value
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 21 November 2017
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 2 June 2015
Is post-Enlightenment philosophy anything more than the thinking up of pointless non-problems, and then spending a lot of time failing to solve them (he asked rhetorically)? If Bertrand Russell - one of Britain's last philosophers of note - worried about that, it didn't stop him writing this history of the discipline. It's huge, not so much in page count as in the density of argument and the sheer amount of learning brought to bear; yet it lacks breadth of understanding, and the ability to consider other points of view which any good historian needs. Russell, with his colourful private life, had a down on Christianity. He comments sarcastically that 'it's a pity God made man', only for some to be damned; you could equally say it's a pity Russell bothered with long sections about Christian philosophy, when he can't seem to find a good word to say about any of it.

Objectivity is an unrealistic goal, but you do expect some semblance of fairness. It's ridiculous for him to dismiss Aquinas on the grounds that he made his philosophy fit pre-existing goals, when that is what most philosophers (and many scientists) do. Philosophy is a matter of getting your ideas in better order. Any philosophy is a closed system; like a computer system, you can't find anything in it that wasn't there at the start. The starting point has to be one's prior beliefs, whether in God, a material universe, or whatever it might be. Russell also plays fast and loose with history. When it comes to blaming the horrors of the Dark Ages on the Church - which is actually the one thing that mitigated them - it really is a bit dishonest. Similarly, there's really no basis for saying that the lot of ordinary people (as opposed to fancy Italian painters) got any better at the Renaissance, or for centuries after it. It's simply that those of Russell's stamp feel that, because the post-Renaissance era is more congenial to them than the Middle Ages, life just *must* have been better.

In a word, Russell does exactly what he accuses Aquinas of doing - what he cannot help doing: he has his ideology, his 'narrative', a tale of life improving steadily in proportion to the benign influence of reason (a vision most of us realise to be simplistic at best), and the facts have to be fitted into it. The trouble is that he's not honest about it.
22 Comments| 4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 4 July 2009
Best book on philosophy that I know of. But don't get the idea that it's simple: Russell's style is clear, and he is witty, and this can lead readers to think his material is simple; but Russell now and then puts in very sharp and complicated theory-of-types analysis. Its divided mostly into names, which is handy for anyone dipping into the views of Parmenides, Plato, Bacon, Descartes, Locke, Leibniz, Spinoza, John Stuart Mill, Marx, Nietzsche... there's a long list. Russell is happy to admit that academic philosophers have usually been cowardly types, and admits many names (e.g. Byron) not normally considered philosophers.

Russell's style is so convincing he was often plagiarised - unconscious imitation being the sincerest form of flattery. Joad (who copied Russell on Marx), and Aldous Huxley (who based Brave New World on a Russell work) are just two examples.

There are innumerable asides, which I presume (he wrote and assembled this book aged about 70) were the fruit of discussions in his youth and middle age; on psychology, groups, sex, emotions, animals, ethics, totalitarianism, adventures, trade - a vast range of topics.

I recommend this to everyone willing to take some trouble. I've met many people who would have benefitted from its intellectual stiffening - for example a gifted physics man who couldn't seem to grasp that atoms are mostly holes, even though they don't look that way. And who had never understood that the square root of two is 'irrational'. Hoary problems - 'universals', 'analytical' and 'synthetic', 'induction', 'teleology', 'determinism' - appear here and there, and it can do no harm to know about them. Russell also is good at picking out the odd practical effects of beliefs: just one example: Stoics and Christians both believed (supposedly) in personal virtue: if external circumstances cannot prevent a man from being virtuous, there is no need to seek a 'just' social system.

There are omissions, all I think to do with demarcation problems - the boundaries of philosophy, apart from politics, history, science, economics, and psychology. Darwin isn't here (much). Freud isn't here - but then Russell regarded the idea of unconscious motivation as the only significant part of Freud. Adam Smith isn't in. Marx is only treated as a philosopher: his economics is looked at by Russell in another book. Note that Russell seemed to regard Marx as 'socialistic'. All Russell's history in a sense is official: there must be innumerable people who were censored or killed or otherwise silenced; but Russell doesn't really bother with them. His book is a bit like commentary on a tidy, ordered library.

Russell's history is typical 20th century western: prehistory, with Egypt, Babylon and the rest regarded as 'oriental despotisms'. Rather inconsistently, the Bible is admitted. There's a conspiracy of silence about Jewish beliefs. Then Greece, then Rome; then the dark ages, and 'middle ages'; Russell accepts that Islam was a transmitter, though I'm not sure he makes a good case. Finally, modern enlightenment and science. Not much was known about many chunks of history, so this schema appeared satisfactory. Some of his historical comments are typically Victorian: the dislike of Rousseau from hatred of the French revolution, and of Rousseau as the supposed origin of romanticism and silliness. Rousseau and Nietzsche and Carlyle were supposed to have led to extremism and Auschwitz; Plato and Sparta to Stalin.

When eras change, Russell usually finds transitional people or ideas as exemplars: the Greeks treated in the then-usual awed way as a mix of peoples; Christianity as taking in Platonic and Judaic elements; Europe as church vs monarchs and feudal nobility and knights; Machiavelli, Erasmus and More at about the Renaissance. ...

Russell himself doubted his success in describing the relation of philosophy to social events when science became important. Russell mostly knew maths, but was notoriously hopeless in practical activities; he literally couldn't make a cup of tea. Such things as the rise and fall of the idea of phlogiston, the growth of chemistry, changes in transport, and such things as anaesthesia, aren't really covered but taken for granted, in rather the way unreflective people seem to think motor cars and piped water and printing have always existed.

Some accuse Russell of bias; typically these are:-

[1] Catholics often can't face the rationalistic side of Russell. (They don't seem to know that Russell wrote a lot on mysticism).

[2] People who like Kant and Hegel, and Nietzsche. Russell was not keen on German philosophy - when he was young, all official philosophers were Hegelians. He followed G E Moore in 'climbing down'.

[3] Supporters of Wittgenstein. Russell was a friend of his, and liked his work when it was new, but decided later it was rather trivial

[4] Supporters of Sartre and other existentialists. Russell dismissed it in a sentence: based emotionally on exasperation, and intellectually on errors of syntax.

[5] 'Linguistic' philosophers of the Gilbert Ryle type - 'just another clever man' according to Russell.

Note that, near the end of his life, Russell spent years on the problem of nuclear weapons, Kennedy's assassination, and, later, the Americans and the Vietnam War. For this reason he's partly censored, still.

It's a pity there is no equivalent book on eastern philosophies... Incidentally 'Sophie's World' is based on Russell.
0Comment| 26 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 18 December 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 and 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 and into the Modern Period. I particularly like the way he treated the medieval philosophers, like Aquinas and 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.
0Comment| 4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 28 November 2011
There are two things you are almost certain to utter constantly to yourself while reading this book: "It can't be that simple!" and "this cannot possibly be true!". A direct result of Russell's lucid presentation on the one hand, that makes seemingly impenetrable concepts readily understandable, and his almost insolent bravery on the other, not shying away from exposing the darker sides of revered philosophers who, if you only happen to have heard of as names, you will be left wondering and slightly ashamed that someone is so ardently criticizing (and even lambasting in several instances).

When I first read this book at a rather young age, I found it both compelling, as well as hard to believe in. Reading someone presenting Plato as an elitist prick with an openly totalitarian agenda, not to mention the attacks against Rousseau or Nietzsche, you are left thinking that this should better be taken with a grain of salt or two. And that's the way it should be. Contrary to what the title suggests, this isn't a history of philosophy in the usual sense. This is a history of philosophy through Russell-O-Vision and it is more than intentionally biased, or better said, tinged. This actually adds a lot to the intrigue of the text and makes the narrative quite spicy and interesting to a level that an actual history would never match. And it leaves no doubts to the reader that there is so much more to philosophy and its history than is written here. This isn't an all-encompassing, encyclopedic reference of western philosophy. It is more of a tease and it constantly hints to further subjects for study - this is actually one of its charms. Even the name-dropping, the quotations and the polymathic historical references are mostly intentionally left schematic, in order to intrigue the reader to search for himself and to doubt what he is reading. Russell's book may not be strictly speaking history, but it requires a far more critically thinking mindset than an ordinary history book. The author himself is more than ready to take a critical stance towards all the doctrines he presents, voicing both his consent and opposition and even debunking some philosophers here and there when he feels it is called for. And it is better to take his lead.

Many have derided the book as being biased. But now that, at a more mature age, I have the time to go through the original texts of the philosophers mentioned in the book, I am quite surprised to find that there is hardly any bias or misrepresentation in most cases and that especially the points that most seem to be over-the-top are usually spot-on. You can hardly read a single dialogue of Plato and not come across several elitist, misogynous (I am a man, by the way) and openly anti-democratic remarks. If this is what you like and agree with, that's fine, but you can't blame Russell for bias and he has every right to ridicule Plato the way he does. The same goes more or less for Nietzsche and Rousseau. After reading "of old and young women", there is hardly any room (for me at least) to take that guy seriously as a philosopher of morals and one can hardly blame Russell for dismissing him the way he does. As for Rousseau, all I can say is that I'd rather not take political advice from a man who is so quick to invoke capital punishment for crimes that are not even murder (as a benchmark, even in the Iliad, the punishment for murder is a fine paid to the relatives of the victim, and banishment in the case the perpetrator refused to pay. And all this 3000 years before Rousseau). After reading the original texts, all I can say is that Russell was probably restrained in his critique!

What is most useful in Russell's presentation of the history of ideas is the stress on their relevance to our current society and the pitfalls they entail once applied to resolve practical problems without restraint and a critical spirit. The book also has the rare advantage of being written in the middle of the second world war, a time when Russell was witnessing the devastation of the world first hand from the very ideas he is often exposing. That gives a unique opportunity to juxtapose theory with practice and to show what is the real world application of ideas that once overly abstracted they seem very noble and respectable and free from criticism, but that lead to devastation once left to unfold towards their inexorable conclusion. Russell's plight for a more humanistic ideology and a respect for reason as an arbiter in human affairs and his opposition to the revolt against reason (and all the will/power philosophies that spawn from it) that was destroying the world at that time, is the most pertinent message of this work for all generations. The last paragraphs of "The sources of Plato's opinions" should be required reading for their defense of democracy. History tends to repeat itself and from what I'm gathering there is a resurgence of the revolt against reason with all of its malicious byproducts. The time resembles a little bit 19th century. After a prolonged period of peace, people are once again hungry for action, not thought, and this is bound to end badly. Russell's plight is again becoming all the more relevant.
0Comment| 7 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)