Scan barcode
A review by franchenstein
History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell
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.