Scan barcode
schmavery's review
3.0
This felt like a fairly comprehensive account of the development of philosophy in the west, but it's hard to know how much I was able to absorb.
The book is written in a way that I felt was very scattered. Some sections have an incredible amount of seemingly unrelated detail, such as the relationships between each Pope and their contemporary kings/emperors throughout the period characterized by the power of the Catholic Church.
Each philosopher ends up being described in relation to the ideas before and after their work. I felt that this confuses the timeline and adds a lot of speculation about how the older philosopher may have responded to newer ideas.
The last section feels dated at times with references to current events, but the majority of the book addresses ideas old enough not to have this feeling.
As far as content is concerned, I found the book spent a lot of time on metaphysical theories, most of which seemed to have limited justification. Of course that’s probably more of a commentary on the philosophers than the author.
In general, a more focused version of this book probably would have been closer to what I had personally hoped for. Spending more time was on fewer philosophers would have helped keep them all clear in my head and fully understand the ideas.
The book is written in a way that I felt was very scattered. Some sections have an incredible amount of seemingly unrelated detail, such as the relationships between each Pope and their contemporary kings/emperors throughout the period characterized by the power of the Catholic Church.
Each philosopher ends up being described in relation to the ideas before and after their work. I felt that this confuses the timeline and adds a lot of speculation about how the older philosopher may have responded to newer ideas.
The last section feels dated at times with references to current events, but the majority of the book addresses ideas old enough not to have this feeling.
As far as content is concerned, I found the book spent a lot of time on metaphysical theories, most of which seemed to have limited justification. Of course that’s probably more of a commentary on the philosophers than the author.
In general, a more focused version of this book probably would have been closer to what I had personally hoped for. Spending more time was on fewer philosophers would have helped keep them all clear in my head and fully understand the ideas.
zkendall's review
4.0
A great introduction to the Philosophic tradition. It is about 2/3 history and 1/3 philosophy. This isn't a bad thing, but something to be aware of.
I definitely wasn't able to absorb all that this book offers, but I can see it being a valuable reference resource in the future.
I definitely wasn't able to absorb all that this book offers, but I can see it being a valuable reference resource in the future.
franchenstein's review against another edition
4.0
I'll start with my biggest criticism to this work, by far: Russell's biases. But it's hard to rate this book poorly on that account as Russell himself admits how biased it is and that he had no intention of making some absolutely neutral analysis of western philosophy ("I was sometimes accused by reviewers of writing not a true history but a biased account of the events that I arbitrarily chose to write of. But to my mind, a man without bias cannot write interesting history — if, indeed, such a man exists."). Even with that in mind, having some knowledge about some of the thinkers he covers, it is possible to see that sometimes his criticism is somewhat shallow.
An alternative title to the book could have been "Why every philosopher before me was wrong and how only the analytic school is the right way of doing philosophy". The way he criticizes most of the philosophers from the past leaves an impression that they were influential but fundamentally wrong. Until you get to the last chapter where he introduces his own school, almost all of the chapters have a mostly negative coverage (perhaps not the ones on Aquinas and Locke). And, to be completely fair, he does acknowledge the limitations of his way of doing philosophy (on how it can do little to further the discussion on Ethics and other major topics concerning human life) but he acts with some hubris on how certain and scientific his methods are on solving issues that can be seen as arid and disconnected from daily life.
Still, Russell's criticisms incentivizes the reader to go to the primary sources and check with their own eyes if whether he says is true and take part in the discussion. He does a good job of giving a general first impression on the philosophers and showing the historical progression of their ideas.
If you are willing to take into account how biased the book is and not take it as gospel, it is a great starting point into further philosophical investigations.
An alternative title to the book could have been "Why every philosopher before me was wrong and how only the analytic school is the right way of doing philosophy". The way he criticizes most of the philosophers from the past leaves an impression that they were influential but fundamentally wrong. Until you get to the last chapter where he introduces his own school, almost all of the chapters have a mostly negative coverage (perhaps not the ones on Aquinas and Locke). And, to be completely fair, he does acknowledge the limitations of his way of doing philosophy (on how it can do little to further the discussion on Ethics and other major topics concerning human life) but he acts with some hubris on how certain and scientific his methods are on solving issues that can be seen as arid and disconnected from daily life.
Still, Russell's criticisms incentivizes the reader to go to the primary sources and check with their own eyes if whether he says is true and take part in the discussion. He does a good job of giving a general first impression on the philosophers and showing the historical progression of their ideas.
If you are willing to take into account how biased the book is and not take it as gospel, it is a great starting point into further philosophical investigations.
spookytrashlover's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
ichirofakename's review
4.0
What learned from this book:
1. Locke deserved his influence.
2. Schopenhauer/Nietsche/Bergson: raving lunatics.
3. Heidegger is so non-sensical you need not even learn how to spell his name.
4 Don't forget about Dewey, James.
4. Superficial overviews can be surprisingly uninformative.
5. Clever, conversational prose can carry you through an entire 900-page book.
1. Locke deserved his influence.
2. Schopenhauer/Nietsche/Bergson: raving lunatics.
3. Heidegger is so non-sensical you need not even learn how to spell his name.
4 Don't forget about Dewey, James.
4. Superficial overviews can be surprisingly uninformative.
5. Clever, conversational prose can carry you through an entire 900-page book.
selaadin's review against another edition
5.0
A truly essential read for anyone wishing to study philosophy, or is interested in a general overview of philosophy. The best book out there on the title subject!
siddharthagolu's review
4.0
Don't make the same mistake as I did and pick this up believing it to be an introductory work of philosophy. It's a challenging but really comprehensive history of philosophical texts, supplied of course with the usual wit and charm and brutal criticism expected from Bertrand Russell. He doesn't pull any punches in making clear whom he likes and whom he doesn't and consequently, the whole book is filled with fierce, and at times comical, opinionated criticisms.
Keep this in mind when you tackle this, and you will surely be rewarded.
Keep this in mind when you tackle this, and you will surely be rewarded.
checkers09's review
2.0
A history of western philosophy covers the most prominent philosophers from recorded western history, beginning with the first Archaic Greek Philosophy to his contemporary period in the 20th century.
I found this book hard going; not only is it over eight-hundred pages long his writing style (at least in my view) isn't very captivating. that in itself isn't very important as long as the book is informative and well-researched however it seemed like a lot of the space taken up by each philosophy was used explaining their life and not their contributions to philosophy.
overall while I appreciate Russel's obvious knowledge of the subject I found this a difficult read and would recommend just skimming some of the key Philosophers.
I found this book hard going; not only is it over eight-hundred pages long his writing style (at least in my view) isn't very captivating. that in itself isn't very important as long as the book is informative and well-researched however it seemed like a lot of the space taken up by each philosophy was used explaining their life and not their contributions to philosophy.
overall while I appreciate Russel's obvious knowledge of the subject I found this a difficult read and would recommend just skimming some of the key Philosophers.