Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.07 AVERAGE
4.07 AVERAGE
This review is two-fold.
The book as product is simply gorgeous. 5 stars review if evere there were any for audiobooks' quality. Audio is perfect; graphic design of the cover is elegant and accurate; the narrator impersonates the very core or Russell's witty but serious personality, even conveying the author's respect or contempt for a philosopher through the tone of voice used during quotations of direct passages.
This last peculiarity of the book as a product opens to the principal characetristic of the book as a piece of thought. The title of this work is deceiving. What Russell wrote is not a HISTORY, but a CRITIQUE of Western philosophy, conceived by the point of view of the school of thought of which he was part, analytic empiricism. The work has been defined biased, first of all by Russell himself who advocated for intellectual honesty and considered calls for impartiality, in matters such as view of the worls of the basis of ethics, as contradictory and dangerously deceptive. I agree so much with his opinions in this regard, that I will go as far as saying that it is not bias what is regularly, coherently and openly stated as the view of the writer.
And believe me, you can tell Russell's views from one mile away! He demolishes Plato, Romanticism, Nietzsche, Schopenauer, Fichte and Bergson, to name some. There is a plan in this critique, and it becomes clear in the last few chapters, when he explains how, in his opinions, analytica philosophy solves the internal inconsistency of all the past philosophical schools and thinkers that tried to explain existence, and provide ethical guidance, in one great system based on metaphisics. In my opinion, recognising this feature of the work answers to the critiques about the unbalance between the stance taken in the three historical periods in which he divides the History of Philosophy: classical times, Middle Ages and modernity. I will not go into details, as many reviewers with a better historical and philosophical culture than mine have already written about the question. There is a lot of imprecision and too much generalisation, in my opinion, in delineating historical frameworks and in judging the Scholastic school, for example. Well, that was the state of the art regarding Medieval thought, at Russell's time, and anyway I forgive him all his flaws because I share much of his bias, except that I am an unrepented Marxist of Maoist tendencies... What I love in Russell is his honesty, his human empathy, his concern for the irrationalistic tendency and for the despise of patient analysis that characterised his times: keep in mind that he wrote during WWII. Not that OUR times are much more promising.
Whether you think he was right or not, this book makes for an enthralling listening (or reading) and still constitutes a classic of popularisation. Well, half-way popularisation; if you have no clue of what Western philosophy is, I would give advice for other books as a first general recognition.
Then, when you feel ready, come back and read this book.
The book as product is simply gorgeous. 5 stars review if evere there were any for audiobooks' quality. Audio is perfect; graphic design of the cover is elegant and accurate; the narrator impersonates the very core or Russell's witty but serious personality, even conveying the author's respect or contempt for a philosopher through the tone of voice used during quotations of direct passages.
This last peculiarity of the book as a product opens to the principal characetristic of the book as a piece of thought. The title of this work is deceiving. What Russell wrote is not a HISTORY, but a CRITIQUE of Western philosophy, conceived by the point of view of the school of thought of which he was part, analytic empiricism. The work has been defined biased, first of all by Russell himself who advocated for intellectual honesty and considered calls for impartiality, in matters such as view of the worls of the basis of ethics, as contradictory and dangerously deceptive. I agree so much with his opinions in this regard, that I will go as far as saying that it is not bias what is regularly, coherently and openly stated as the view of the writer.
And believe me, you can tell Russell's views from one mile away! He demolishes Plato, Romanticism, Nietzsche, Schopenauer, Fichte and Bergson, to name some. There is a plan in this critique, and it becomes clear in the last few chapters, when he explains how, in his opinions, analytica philosophy solves the internal inconsistency of all the past philosophical schools and thinkers that tried to explain existence, and provide ethical guidance, in one great system based on metaphisics. In my opinion, recognising this feature of the work answers to the critiques about the unbalance between the stance taken in the three historical periods in which he divides the History of Philosophy: classical times, Middle Ages and modernity. I will not go into details, as many reviewers with a better historical and philosophical culture than mine have already written about the question. There is a lot of imprecision and too much generalisation, in my opinion, in delineating historical frameworks and in judging the Scholastic school, for example. Well, that was the state of the art regarding Medieval thought, at Russell's time, and anyway I forgive him all his flaws because I share much of his bias, except that I am an unrepented Marxist of Maoist tendencies... What I love in Russell is his honesty, his human empathy, his concern for the irrationalistic tendency and for the despise of patient analysis that characterised his times: keep in mind that he wrote during WWII. Not that OUR times are much more promising.
Whether you think he was right or not, this book makes for an enthralling listening (or reading) and still constitutes a classic of popularisation. Well, half-way popularisation; if you have no clue of what Western philosophy is, I would give advice for other books as a first general recognition.
Then, when you feel ready, come back and read this book.
Fantastic overview of Western Philosophy and its sociological and historical underpinnings. Well-written (despite the subject matter), including wry humor and incisive insights. The only reason I don't give it a 5 is because the writer is less dispassionate and more leading in his approach than I would have preferred (though I suppose the writing would have suffered had he truly attempted to do so). A solid 4.5 if it were available.
I know I'm supposed to start with Greeks. I've heard Bertrand Russell is biased. And for no apparent reason I skipped ancient and catholic philosophy. So having read only modern philosophy(about 400 pages) , I can say that Bertrand Russell is pretty concise, accessible and definitely based; and he's not trying to hide it. Neitzsches chapter does seem like a hard roasting. I'll probably pick Gottlieb's Dream of Reason for Greek philosophy, and later Anthony Kenny's book for another reference when I decide to do this again. Either way, I've found good amount of original texts to read further.
Did not finish. So, so, so dry. I've read other texts that explain the essential precepts of the great philosophers, but the writing here is so dull (perhaps, I think, because it is somewhat old fashioned) that I just could not get through it. I didn't even get out of Ancient Greece!
I will say, however, that I did enjoy the contextualisation of the philosophers within their time. Most books on philosophy don't bother to relate the biographies of the philosophers they discuss, but I found this to be the most engaging part of Bertrand Russell's mammoth text.
I will say, however, that I did enjoy the contextualisation of the philosophers within their time. Most books on philosophy don't bother to relate the biographies of the philosophers they discuss, but I found this to be the most engaging part of Bertrand Russell's mammoth text.
A thoroughly enjoyable read, largely because of how clear Russell's biases are. Perhaps a more useful book for understanding the author than the content.
In its relatively brief 836 pages it provided me a very thorough and firm grounding in philosophy: its origins, progression and current challenges.
Read the second half only. Pretty dense and would not claim to have understood everything, but covers a lot of important ground and offers a good overview of the most influential philosophers and philosopies in the western cannon.
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.
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.