Scan barcode
outcolder's review
3.0
Each chapter more or less summarizes Russell's interpretation of the philosopher(s) in question, and then offers his critique of their thinking. The critiques are fun, especially when he really hates a philosophy, he just shreds it. For me, there were some surprises, like the vehemence of Russell's vitriol for Rousseau. The summaries are often confusing though and I think leave out more than they include. The shadow of World War II hangs over the whole thing, with the German philosophers getting automatic minus-points. I really like the idea of connecting the philosophers and philosophies to their social and cultural backgrounds, and Russell promised to do that, but it occurs only sparingly. So while I want everything to be longer: the summaries, the social analysis, the ranting; at the same time, the book was too long, and especially the more recent philosophers were a drag to finish. Better to zoom in on an era or a thinker and not try to jam all of European thought into one concentrated brick.
I wish I'd read some other Russell book instead, and some other introduction to philosophy, with a broader focus than just the so-called West.
I wish I'd read some other Russell book instead, and some other introduction to philosophy, with a broader focus than just the so-called West.
bittersweet_symphony's review against another edition
3.0
A critical history of Western philosophy, it covers a massive amount of territory. Despite holding a lot of views contrary to Russell (ex: he seems to almost intentionally misunderstand William James and John Dewey), but I appreciate his wit and am in awe of his breadth of knowledge.
One can read this book all the way through but I think a reader is best served using it as a companion. Russell offers an analytic phil perspective on an extensive host of philosophers and schools, which can provide a useful dovetail to many other books and articles on the matter.
One can read this book all the way through but I think a reader is best served using it as a companion. Russell offers an analytic phil perspective on an extensive host of philosophers and schools, which can provide a useful dovetail to many other books and articles on the matter.
painofboredom's review against another edition
5.0
Despite Russell being way too opinionated (he seems to despise Nietzsche openly) it was pretty fun read though I also wouldn't say I disliked his commentary either
It is incredibly easy to read and I also liked bits of historical contexts provided as I had no sense of chronology of European History before
Hume Kant Hegel and Bergson interested me the most tho Hegel might be a bit cuckoo
Would like to read from Kant more
It is incredibly easy to read and I also liked bits of historical contexts provided as I had no sense of chronology of European History before
Hume Kant Hegel and Bergson interested me the most tho Hegel might be a bit cuckoo
Would like to read from Kant more
kurtiskozel's review against another edition
1.0
I give it one star for the prose, which is some of the best ever written. I give another for the first third of this book dealing with the Greek philosophers. I take that star away for his needless wheedling and left-handed haymakers. The rest of the stars I throw out with the bathwater.
It starts strong and interesting but by the end I not only dislike the author but philosophy itself.
Russell editorialized throughout, of which almost all were snappy one liners and weird, backhanded insults. He gave no or very little credit to the greats but would seem to prefer their books buried in the same coffins as their authors. This made for a very hard read. How should I be expected to enjoy it? The author certainly didn't.
Truly, the author is the most negative writer I have read in a very long time and in that way he may be perfectly suited to write on modern philosophy. However, as with most others who do, it'd be best if he didn't.
It starts strong and interesting but by the end I not only dislike the author but philosophy itself.
Russell editorialized throughout, of which almost all were snappy one liners and weird, backhanded insults. He gave no or very little credit to the greats but would seem to prefer their books buried in the same coffins as their authors. This made for a very hard read. How should I be expected to enjoy it? The author certainly didn't.
Truly, the author is the most negative writer I have read in a very long time and in that way he may be perfectly suited to write on modern philosophy. However, as with most others who do, it'd be best if he didn't.
is_book_loring's review against another edition
5.0
“To understand an age or a nation, we must understand its philosophy, and to understand its philosophy we must ourselves be in some degree philosophers. There is here a reciprocal causation: the circumstances of men’s lives do much to determine their philosophy, but, conversely, their philosophy does much to determine their circumstances.”
The History of Western Philosophy provided the clear, accessible, general but comprehensive and substantial outline of the development of philosophy that I looked for. Bertrand Russell did have his own unconscious biases and subjectivity, but he acknowledged the fact of social effects and always stated clearly whenever the passage was his own view and not the philosophers'. Perhaps I am partial toward him, as I happen to like him and his humorous wit a lot; and find him an extremely intelligent, broad-minded person, and excellent writer, from whom I learned not only varying schools of philosophy, but also to dig deep into different perspectives but ready to empathize, to be critical but humble and not condemning, to always be curious and question everything but never grow apathetic, never lose hope in ourselves and humanity.
“To teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being paralyzed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it.”
The History of Western Philosophy provided the clear, accessible, general but comprehensive and substantial outline of the development of philosophy that I looked for. Bertrand Russell did have his own unconscious biases and subjectivity, but he acknowledged the fact of social effects and always stated clearly whenever the passage was his own view and not the philosophers'. Perhaps I am partial toward him, as I happen to like him and his humorous wit a lot; and find him an extremely intelligent, broad-minded person, and excellent writer, from whom I learned not only varying schools of philosophy, but also to dig deep into different perspectives but ready to empathize, to be critical but humble and not condemning, to always be curious and question everything but never grow apathetic, never lose hope in ourselves and humanity.
“To teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being paralyzed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it.”
eb00kie's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
informative
inspiring
reflective
sad
medium-paced
4.0