 |
PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHYTHE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR PHILOSOPHY IN PRACTICEwww.practical-philosophy.org.uk www.society-for-philosophy-in-practice.org |
|
|
|
PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHYTHE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR PHILOSOPHY IN PRACTICEwww.practical-philosophy.org.uk www.society-for-philosophy-in-practice.org |
|
History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
First published in 1946
Practical Philosophy (Book Reviews) July 2001 Volume 4.2
Reviewed by: Trevor Curnow
I am aware that my classic reviews to date have tended to have something of an autobiographical dimension to them, and this (fortunately) strikes me as wholly appropriate. It might, of course, be possible to draw up a broadly agreed canon of the classics of western philosophy, and to do so could be an interesting exercise. (How many of us would include on it books which, if pressed, we would have to admit that we had not actually read?!) But even within such a canon, there would be individual items which enjoyed a particularly personal resonance. Many books are read, some are remembered, and some (probably most) are mainly (if not entirely) forgotten. But occasionally, very occasionally, books are encountered which change lives. Such a book, for me, is Russell’s History of Western Philosophy. It was the first philosophy book I ever bought (thereby marking the beginning of a long and expensive habit), and it was the book that confirmed me in my desire to study philosophy.
However, setting personal considerations aside, why should anyone else be persuaded that this book is a classic? It is by no means the only history of western philosophy available, and one would be hard pushed to argue that it is even the best. (I would reserve that accolade for Copleston’s monumental achievement, but others will doubtless have different opinions.) Russell disarmingly acknowledges that he cannot be considered an expert (at least in the relatively narrow sense of the term) on the vast majority of those whom he discusses (with Leibniz constituting a significant exception). Consequently one does not go to the book for the most authoritative accounts of the thinkers covered in it. Fortunately (or, perhaps, regrettably?), however, that is not always what one wants.
What Russell delivers (and delivers better than the competition, in my view) are the great literary virtues of conciseness and clarity. Combined with a degree of wit and a sharp critical perspective, these serve to produce what is always both an enjoyable and an instructive read. Philosophy is a challenging subject, and those who do not find it so are almost certainly missing something important. However, it is often made more difficult than it need be by being written about in the kind of style which gets the word ‘academic’ a bad name. Vacuity, verbosity, obscurity and pomposity are perhaps the four ‘cardinal vices’ which infect far too much philosophical writing. (I need hardly point out that these vices are not unique to philosophers!) When reading Russell, there is always the sense that things seem difficult only if they genuinely are difficult. What you see is the best you can get. Even the more pot-boiling parts of his output possess significant literary merit, and it is difficult to think of any other English-speaking philosopher who could even have made it onto the short list for literature's Nobel Prize. (Even in the non-English-speaking world, one assumes it was Sartre’s fiction that swung the committee?)
Irony is rarely far removed from human reality, and it is perhaps an instance of it that Russell’s most important early philosophical work is relatively little known, and probably becoming even less known as years go by. In the popular imagination his name will always be primarily linked to the image of a craggy, white-haired figure protesting against nuclear weapons, and being imprisoned for doing so. However, it is always possible that, for as long as a copy of History of Western Philosophy can be found, people will be tempted to pick it up and be drawn into philosophy because of it. That is an enviable achievement.
|
|
|