You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.07 AVERAGE
4.07 AVERAGE
challenging
funny
informative
reflective
slow-paced
The book itself is fine and perfectly interesting so far as the history that it provides. The problem, for me, is that the subject is ludicrous.
It seems to me that, quite ironically, the subject itself doesn't really exist except in the minds of the pompous bombasts involved.
But then I listened to 38 hours of this... so who is really the fool?
It seems to me that, quite ironically, the subject itself doesn't really exist except in the minds of the pompous bombasts involved.
But then I listened to 38 hours of this... so who is really the fool?
It doesn't pretend to be an "objective" account of philosophy and that, along with Russell's easy writing style, makes it a load of fun. Russell slags off pretty much every philosopher he talks about and his British aristocratic condescension comes through clarion-clear. Unfortunately, he also has some pretty out-dated ideas about "civilized peoples" and invokes ethnic stereotypes liberally, which sits uncomfortably by his Fabian socialist sensibilities. These parts, clearly, are not as fun.
I read another review of A History of Western Philosophy recently that suggested the best way to enjoy it is to out-condescend Russell himself, who spends most of the text condescending toward other philosophers. That made me laugh, because I had been doing that since the beginning, and it has made the read truly fun--Russell is no stranger to self-contradiction and casual bigotry himself.
And all the while I'm putting raised eyebrows and "lol" in the margins, I'm also learning quite a bit and refreshing my memory of things I have learned before. I really liked the Nietzsche chapter, because Russell dislikes Nietzsche, which is a feeling I mostly share (I believe that the post-WW2 rehabilitation of Nietzsche went way too far--the guy talks about blond beasts and the righteousness of war too much for me to buy it's all a metaphor for personal growth.)
All in all this book is one that you need to read with a critical eye but that's part of the puzzle: there is a lot of really interesting content and enlightening plausible answers to perennial questions, or at least clarification of the formulation of the questions themselves. Russell examines each philosopher in the context of their social circumstances as well as the content of their beliefs and their personal stories. He is critical of Marx though acknowledges debt to his historical method in his treatment of the history of philosophy. There is much to be gained from Russell's sharp intellect and moral wisdom, but he must not be treated as infallible or without contradiction--in fact, Russell contradicts himself fairly often in this text, sometimes within pages. But as long as the tome is handled carefully, it is a joy to read, and something that will probably change your thinking about numerous subjects.
I read another review of A History of Western Philosophy recently that suggested the best way to enjoy it is to out-condescend Russell himself, who spends most of the text condescending toward other philosophers. That made me laugh, because I had been doing that since the beginning, and it has made the read truly fun--Russell is no stranger to self-contradiction and casual bigotry himself.
And all the while I'm putting raised eyebrows and "lol" in the margins, I'm also learning quite a bit and refreshing my memory of things I have learned before. I really liked the Nietzsche chapter, because Russell dislikes Nietzsche, which is a feeling I mostly share (I believe that the post-WW2 rehabilitation of Nietzsche went way too far--the guy talks about blond beasts and the righteousness of war too much for me to buy it's all a metaphor for personal growth.)
All in all this book is one that you need to read with a critical eye but that's part of the puzzle: there is a lot of really interesting content and enlightening plausible answers to perennial questions, or at least clarification of the formulation of the questions themselves. Russell examines each philosopher in the context of their social circumstances as well as the content of their beliefs and their personal stories. He is critical of Marx though acknowledges debt to his historical method in his treatment of the history of philosophy. There is much to be gained from Russell's sharp intellect and moral wisdom, but he must not be treated as infallible or without contradiction--in fact, Russell contradicts himself fairly often in this text, sometimes within pages. But as long as the tome is handled carefully, it is a joy to read, and something that will probably change your thinking about numerous subjects.
challenging
informative
slow-paced
Immensely readable, and a great introduction to the history of philosophy. Russell is always forthcoming about who he likes (and dislikes), and one would do well to keep that in mind when reading the text. A great starting point for those interested in exploring the world of philosophy.
Despite being 80ish years old at this point, it's still one of the best primers on Western Philosophy. I've tried quite a few books as a layperson to get a general idea of things and this is the only one that's able to get through everything with some sort of speed. Russell takes care to reduce everything to it's basics rather then delving into every nook in cranny of the arguments.
Russell is not without his biases, but they are not hidden. He does come out and frankly tell the reader how he feels. In other guides, you can detect that the Author seems to be overly enamored with a particular philosopher, and it's hard to tell if that's a personal preference or wide held regard.
I did particularly enjoy how much ire Russell had for the greeks. So many books hold them sacrosanct, and spend so much time lauding them. Russell, I think, takes the time to properly examine them but still make sure to remind the reader that their ideas no longer hold water.
More than merely recounting the beliefs of each school of thought, Russell presents the evolution of conceptions of truth. Overtime we move from pure reason to perception as the source of knowledge, ending with Russell's own argument for a synthesis of the two.
Russell is not without his biases, but they are not hidden. He does come out and frankly tell the reader how he feels. In other guides, you can detect that the Author seems to be overly enamored with a particular philosopher, and it's hard to tell if that's a personal preference or wide held regard.
I did particularly enjoy how much ire Russell had for the greeks. So many books hold them sacrosanct, and spend so much time lauding them. Russell, I think, takes the time to properly examine them but still make sure to remind the reader that their ideas no longer hold water.
More than merely recounting the beliefs of each school of thought, Russell presents the evolution of conceptions of truth. Overtime we move from pure reason to perception as the source of knowledge, ending with Russell's own argument for a synthesis of the two.
If you want to gain an overview of western philosophy then Bertrand Russell’s ‘The History of Western Philosophy’ is a good place to start. The book is exhaustive in its survey, stretching from the early Greeks to close to the time of Russell’s writing in the midst of WWII. Russell does miss the importance of several of his contemporaries, and elevates the importance of his own work, but this is understandable given that perspective is always limited in one’s own time.
As for western philosophy prior the 20th century, from the pre-Socratics to Dewey and Russell himself, this is an excellent survey. Nearly every philosopher that has had any noticeable impact is discussed at least a bit, and philosophers of great importance are discussed thoroughly. Russell does a good job of encapsulating the views of each philosopher and admits when he does not understand a part of their philosophy, which is quite useful.
Where Russell may go astray for some readers is when he gives his own opinions on the philosophies that he is surveying. These comments can come off as snide and arrogant, and even funny. Clearly he has a viewpoint and does not hide it. For me this was fine. First, his opinions are generally well-reasoned and an important way of understanding philosophy is through critique. When Russell’s critiques are backed up by logic and consideration, they are useful. Less useful, but fortunately more rare, are asides that are mostly just opinion. Second, Russell’s opinions and asides can be entertaining, increasing the levity of what can sometimes be pretty dry stuff.
I would not recommend this book if you want to learn a lot about a given philosopher or philosophy. While some of Russell’s treatments are thorough, there is often still a lack of true depth. But he gives the flavor of many, and as a map for further exploration it’s hard to do much better.
As for western philosophy prior the 20th century, from the pre-Socratics to Dewey and Russell himself, this is an excellent survey. Nearly every philosopher that has had any noticeable impact is discussed at least a bit, and philosophers of great importance are discussed thoroughly. Russell does a good job of encapsulating the views of each philosopher and admits when he does not understand a part of their philosophy, which is quite useful.
Where Russell may go astray for some readers is when he gives his own opinions on the philosophies that he is surveying. These comments can come off as snide and arrogant, and even funny. Clearly he has a viewpoint and does not hide it. For me this was fine. First, his opinions are generally well-reasoned and an important way of understanding philosophy is through critique. When Russell’s critiques are backed up by logic and consideration, they are useful. Less useful, but fortunately more rare, are asides that are mostly just opinion. Second, Russell’s opinions and asides can be entertaining, increasing the levity of what can sometimes be pretty dry stuff.
I would not recommend this book if you want to learn a lot about a given philosopher or philosophy. While some of Russell’s treatments are thorough, there is often still a lack of true depth. But he gives the flavor of many, and as a map for further exploration it’s hard to do much better.
adventurous
informative
inspiring
reflective
relaxing
medium-paced
The narration of the audiobook is great.
About the book, I've written y review in portuguese here:
https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com/2019/06/historia-da-filosofia-ocidental-1945.html
About the book, I've written y review in portuguese here:
https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com/2019/06/historia-da-filosofia-ocidental-1945.html
Russell bites off more than he can chew here, I think. More importantly, this text shows it's age and vintage—a vintage when philosophy seemed to be a pass time unique to the male of the species and notably those more lightly complected. Historically, I can forgive Russell and appreciate this extraordinary effort, but I can't recommend it very highly. A student would do better reading more in depth and putting the pieces together for him or herself.