Scan barcode
greden's review against another edition
4.0
The entire historeeeeh of western philoslophiehhhhh
Said in the poshest British accent humanly possible. I love saying the slightly modified title of this book whenever I am reminded of it and never fails to make me chuckle.
Bertrand Russel, himself a famous philosopher, has a supreme intellect and crystal clear rational thinking, and an acute sense of logic that is virtually unmatched, which he uses to explain complex ideas with clear, relatable examples and dissect the wrong thinking and contradictions of philosophers discussed. There are only a handful of individuals who could write a book like this.
From it, I got a rough sketch of the development of ideas and their historical context but also, but I feel like my immune system against faulty thinking has improved. While also improving my confidence to develop my own ideas.
I think Russel nailed how much he let his own ideas comment on the philosophers. And I don't disagree with anything he said, even if my temperament and values differ from his. Other than that I'll leave the review of the big book short because I swallowed it whole. Yum yum.
Said in the poshest British accent humanly possible. I love saying the slightly modified title of this book whenever I am reminded of it and never fails to make me chuckle.
Bertrand Russel, himself a famous philosopher, has a supreme intellect and crystal clear rational thinking, and an acute sense of logic that is virtually unmatched, which he uses to explain complex ideas with clear, relatable examples and dissect the wrong thinking and contradictions of philosophers discussed. There are only a handful of individuals who could write a book like this.
From it, I got a rough sketch of the development of ideas and their historical context but also, but I feel like my immune system against faulty thinking has improved. While also improving my confidence to develop my own ideas.
I think Russel nailed how much he let his own ideas comment on the philosophers. And I don't disagree with anything he said, even if my temperament and values differ from his. Other than that I'll leave the review of the big book short because I swallowed it whole. Yum yum.
jmercy's review against another edition
2.0
The beginnings covering the pre-socratics and Greeks are pretty good. Then half the book is just Christian 'philosophers' arguing about God. I mean, maybe that is the history of western philosophy but I think I need to read more sources rather than take Bertrand at face value on that huge focus for this book. Every other philosopher other than Christian ones takes up very very little of the book. Really weird. Kinda ass.
gyokusho's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
5.0
elanna76's review against another edition
4.0
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.
fairchildone's review against another edition
4.0
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.
supreeth's review against another edition
4.0
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.
tomleetang's review against another edition
1.0
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.