Wong Lives! Book Reviews: Book Review: A History of Western Philosophy

A History of Western Philosophy, by Betrand Russell

Source: Amazon.com (note, I used the audiobook cover image here)

From the book’s cover:

Hailed as “lucid and magisterial” by The Observer, this book is universally acclaimed as the outstanding one-volume work on the subject of Western philosophy.

Considered to be one of the most important philosophical works of all time, the History of Western Philosophy is a dazzlingly unique exploration of the ideologies of significant philosophers throughout the ages—from Plato and Aristotle through to Spinoza, Kant and the twentieth century. Written by a man who changed the history of philosophy himself, this is an account that has never been rivaled since its first publication over sixty years ago.

Since its first publication in 1945, Lord Russell’s A History of Western Philosophy is still unparalleled in its comprehensiveness, its clarity, its erudition, its grace, and its wit. In seventy-six chapters he traces philosophy from the rise of Greek civilization to the emergence of logical analysis in the twentieth century.

Among the philosophers considered are: Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, the Atomists, Protagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Cynics, the Sceptics, the Epicureans, the Stoics, Plotinus, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Benedict, Gregory the Great, John the Scot, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, William of Occam, Machiavelli, Erasmus, More, Bacon, Hobbes, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, the Utilitarians, Marx, Bergson, James, Dewey, and lastly the philosophers with whom Lord Russell himself is most closely associated—Cantor, Frege, and Whitehead, coauthor with Russell of the monumental Principia Mathematica.

Review:

A History of Western Philosophy taught me some interesting things. For one, I learned that Plato's idea of Republic was a pretty messed up concept. Specifically, I didn't know that Plato proposed that all people be married according to supposed "lots," but in reality he was an advocate of a eugenics principle in which the best "stock" was paired, thus leading to better classes of people over time. Also nobody was to know who their father was, nor their mother, so that all would hold each other in significant deference, I suppose (if I understood it correctly).

I also learned a lot about Greek philosophy in general, including how it seems that they were very stuck on themselves. Of course this is not surprising, as they were the first people we know of to propose some of the ideas that led to a compiled idea of human philosophy in the West. Then again, they were very much concerned and convinced that the world worked according to ideas that suited their own viewpoints, including the concept that slavery was OK because other races had a certain amount of subservience that made them naturally governed, whereas the Greeks were a noble race. This is not surprising, I suppose. Different times and different (and much smaller, when you think about it) perspectives. No wonder so many of them thought the sun and everything else revolved about the Earth.

Russell's explanations are pretty useful, and I have a new-found understanding of what I was supposed to be learning in my freshman level philosophy course (though I still have more to read... much more).

The author, Betrand Russell / Source: nndb.com

Side Note: I have heard of Russell's name before, and seem to associate some sort of scandal or infamy with it, though I can't place what exactly. Nevertheless, the book on history of philosophy is fairly well presented (so far) in my estimation, though I confess myself a novice on the subject of philosophy. His historical information is fascinating to me, but then I slurp up just about everything of historical interest that I can wrap my head around...

After a few more days of reading:

Hmmm... The material on the middle ages and pre-Renaissance philosophers was interesting. But what I took most from it was that this was really a period of stagnation for the West, and - thankfully - he briefly covered the contribution of Arab philosophers on the period and the Arab inheritance of the Greek materials and the associated traditions. Also, the description of the historical epoch made it clearer than ever to me that this was a time of great confusion for theological philosophy. All the Popes and Anti-popes and the various heresies and splintering of doctrine made my head spin. No wonder the reformation happened. The Catholic church of the period seems to have been practically begging for it. This would merit further investigation and research.

I won't pretend to understand much of the philosophical material that Russell covers when explaining the works of the philosophers from both before the rise of science and also from the "modern" period (Aprox 1550 onward, I'd say). I was once again left amazed at the contributions of Galileo, Kepler and Newton, as I always am when I read about these men. How brave they must have been, in some respects, to publish materials that were so counter to all prevailing ideas at the time. And how right they were, in many respects.

I suppose one might call these three "practical" philosophers, in that their theories have shaped much of the modern world. From left to right are Sir Isaac Newton, whose ideas on motion and light are fundamentals of the subjects. Next is Galileo Galilei, whose theories on heliocentrism made him quite unpopular with the Catholic church. Finally Johannes Kepler, who contributed the laws on planetary motion as we know them today. / Source: 3.bp.blogspot.com

Descartes is as quirky and yet as fascinating as ever. I remember trying to read his meditations when I took my into Philosophy course my first real semester of college. It didn't make much sense. Russell states that Descartes had a style primed more for the learned audience, and not for the masses, and I am glad to hear it. I felt very stupid trying to understand what he was trying to say when I read the Meditations, and am glad to know he wasn't wringing to my level. I wouldn't say I'm dumb, but in philosophy and such, I'm woefully backward.

I'm once again impressed by how so many philosophers had ideas that were so close to correct, and yet they were just whistling in the dark on so many other things. Granted, we still don't know all, but it is also based on what we believe. And this convinces me more than ever that philosophy is a product only of the men (and women, I'd assume, though few have been discussed in this book) who make up the theory. I've not read yet of a philosopher whose theory didn't in some way suit that particular person and thus fits more toward being a personal ideal (good or bad, depending on what they believed and were wiling to accept about the universe) than any grand unifying concept. Only the scientifically-backed philosophers seem to have a leg to firmly stand on, and they are more men of science than they are thinkers on the great unknowns.

As for Russell's writing, he puts in his own opinions on the subjects he's covering, and this is both good and bad. Bad, because it shows his own biases, but good, as he seems quite well versed in his subject and is probably very well qualified to weigh in, I'd suppose.

Nobody said a word about this though, and three weeks later, after an exhaustive process of re-programming, the first mainframe computer was taught how to play tic-tac-toe at a fourth grade level. Thus was born computer gaming, and the world was saved from the rise of artificial intelligence for at least three-quarters of a century or more. / Source: aswinvanwoudenberg.com

Having read again further:

Will this book never end? It seems to go on and on and on. I am not saying ti isn't good, but its like reading a textbook after awhile. And I don't mind textbooks as a rule, but this one... Well, its good, but I'll be glad to complete it.

I liked the material on Locke, and could relate to his theories, but I suppose that is because I live in a nation (the United States) directly influenced by his philosophy. I also thought Kant's Critique of Pure Reason was interesting. I wish I could point out specifics, but it all gets a bit blurry at times. If the book wasn't so long and in-depth (I'm sure the author thought he was giving scant attention to certain details, but I'm not a philosopher like he was, by any means), it might be easier to point out things I found so fascinating in it. Jewels of insight I gained from the overall experience, as it were. But alas, I can't.

Rousseau was also very interesting. Not so much his theories, but his personality. Talk about a jerk. Of course, perhaps Russell's interpretation colors the man somewhat, but I found Rousseau to be pretty obnoxious, based on the details of his life that Russell did provide. The part about how he abandoned a friend to thrash in the street after the man had an epileptic fit was really eye-opening. But then, I also love his statement: "Men are born free and yet everywhere they are in chains." Probably not a perfect quote, but interesting.

The way philosophical thought has influenced nations and states over time was also fascinating, though much of it had to be inferred based upon Russell's sometimes off-hand comments. Then again in many cases he points out directly, as when he says Locke influenced the U.S. founding fathers, or that Stalin and Hitler were both branches off two distinct philosophical branches of thought (I forget the roots of them, but you get the idea). Its great stuff.

Nietzsche, though he has some really memorable quotes, is in my opinion, a bit of a weirdo. But hey, cool Superman/Ubermensch take-off here... / Source: Static.ComicVine.com

Reading further:

The section on Nietzsche was fascinating to me. Not that I accord with Nietzsche's philosophy, but because it is so different from most other ways of thought that are covered in the rest of the book. Nietzsche's "superman" is an interesting character/idea. Without compassion, and the stronger because of it. I am sure it has been covered in other writings, and I'd like to know: Did Hitler read Nietzsche? The actions of the Third Reich seem to conform to Nietzsche's principles in many ways. Of course, as Russell points out, so have many aristocratic powers throughout history (he specifies Ancient Egypt for one, though he might have noted others too). Anyway, gaining a greater understanding of Nietzsche was useful.

But pressing forward from there? Well the section on Marx didn't teach me any more than I already knew, having studied Marx previously (my Russophile and especially Sovietophile tendencies must cause me to include the life and works of Marx in my studies to some degree, of course). I still don't fully understand the idea of Dialectical materialism that was part of Marxist theory. The explanation Russell gave, though it helped to a certain extent, still went a bit over my head.

Back-tracking a bit, the stuff on Bentham was also interesting, but it really didn't jump out out at me. There seems to be too much discussion of Bentham vs. John Stuart Mill and his father James so that I got a bit off track, I guess. Then after this, Russell covered Bergson, and this section felt like it was going to take forever. Too spacey for me. My attention started to wander. I'm sure the information is well presented, but I just couldn't wrap my mind around it. By this point, I was hoping the book would just hurry up and conclude. Again, it isn't so much the author's work as it is the subject matter dragging on me. I guess I just don't have an open enough mind, despite my curiosity, to handle so much western philosophy in such a large dose. I find it fascinating, but not engaging. Does that make sense?

Bottom line: a big book with everything you may need to know about western philosophy, Betrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy is full of useful data. It is also a bit deep for me, and so I would only recommend it if you are interested in the subject matter and can fathom it fairly well. This is not the Sesame Street of philosophical texts by any means. At least it wasn't for me.

Learn more about Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy on Amazon.com

The parting comment:

A three-for-one today on parting comments!