Book review – The History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell

Knowledge of external things must be by the mind, not by the senses – Rene Descartes

This was one of the most difficult books I've ever read and it was a relief to turn the final page of this book. Bertrand Russell is a renowned philosopher, polymath and a Nobel laureate in literature. This book is a treatise on the history of Western Philosophy. I'd be doing this book a disservice if I called it boring. To be more accurate, it was a dry read about the history of Western Philosophy, along with Mr Russell's take on some of those theories. It's a very heavy read and has detailed theses (sometimes even verbatim) of some of the important work of certain philosophers.

The reason I started this book was to understand the mindset of thinkers across history and effected massive and sometimes long-lasting social changes (Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau, Nietzsche, Hegel come to mind in these categories). And whoever wants to read how philosophers and their philosophy had a cause and effect relationship to social life should read this book. I feel the best part about this book is distilling the thoughts of various philosophers across generations and ensuring that there's a certain flow and order to these thoughts.

The book is divided into three books: Ancient Philosophy, Catholic Philosophy and Modern Philosophy (until early 1940s when this was written). But be ready for repetition since a lot of these philosophers built upon and repeated the work of their predecessors. And philosophers either love Plato or hate him, but can't seem to ignore him (similarly for the Greeks and the Romans). A lot of them have a grandiose sense of their importance (and philosophers in general). It also talks in depth about philosophy and papacy, which were almost inseparable before Reformation and how philosophy changed its course during and after the industrial revolution.

Talking about the author, Russell tries to take an impartial view of all theories, but I can't help but notice that he talks about England as if the nation and its philosophers are the epitome of rationality, unfazed by emotions. As someone who is overly critical of Prussia and Nazi Germany (with great reason), he never seems to have an issue with the British Empire. In a paragraph about Nietzsche, he says that it never occurs to Nietzsche that those who do not fear their neighbours see no necessity to tyrannize over them. I wonder if he never felt that about his England terrorizing the world for over 300 years.

Most probably, I won't be reading this a second time, but if you're taking this book up and go beyond the halfway mark, you're a braveheart. But don't take this up unless you really have a hankering to read the history of Western philosophy in depth.