Book · 1946
A History of Philosophy
by Frederick Copleston
Nine volumes, one Jesuit priest, and the only multi-volume history of Western philosophy that r/askphilosophy will actually defend in a thread.
What does Reddit think of A History of Philosophy?
All 15 mentions of Copleston's History of Philosophy live in r/askphilosophy, which tells you something: this is a book people reach for when the question is serious. The set appears whenever someone wants a chronological survey and needs something more rigorous than Russell. The Russell comparison is explicit. One ↑18 comment calls Russell's History "trash" and instructs readers to "Read Coppleston or Kenny" — the pairing is instructive, because Kenny gets the single-volume nod while Copleston wins the "single author, multi-volume" category outright, per an ↑15 thread that maps the landscape directly. The Jesuit-priest caveat comes up in the ↑55 top comment, which notes the biases are navigable and that secular professors assign it anyway. Specific volumes get recommended on their own merits: volumes two and three for medieval philosophy, by name. Twelve unique commenters across 15 mentions over seven years is a low-traffic book with a consistent reputation.
Community feedback & reader fit
Themes
- · Chronological history of Western philosophy
- · Academic secondary source debate (Russell vs. Copleston vs. Kenny)
- · Medieval philosophy coverage
- · Author perspective and bias in philosophical historiography
- · Multi-volume reference vs. single-volume survey tradeoffs
Common praise
- + r/askphilosophy commenters treat it as the default answer when someone asks for a serious multi-volume history of Western philosophy.
- + Volumes two and three get cited by name for medieval philosophy, which means the coverage actually holds up under specialist scrutiny.
- + The Jesuit bias gets flagged, then immediately dismissed as navigable — even secular professors assign it.
- + Beats Russell so consistently in these threads that "Read Coppleston" functions almost as a correction rather than a recommendation.
Common criticism
- − Copleston's Catholic background produces real interpretive slants that readers have to account for rather than just trust.
- − At nine volumes it demands a commitment that makes it a reference set more than a read-through.
- − No single-volume option exists — if you need a quick survey, r/askphilosophy steers you to Kenny instead.
- − Fifteen mentions across seven years signals a narrow academic audience that never widened.
Who it's for
You're studying philosophy chronologically and need something that goes deeper than a survey but doesn't fragment across thirty authors. Copleston is the answer r/askphilosophy gives when someone has already tried Russell and found it wanting. The medieval volumes specifically — two and three — come up whenever someone narrows to that period, so if that's your focus, those are the entry point. Skip the set if you need one volume; Kenny handles that use case in the same threads.
Mentions over time
Top subreddits
Which Reddit comments matter for A History of Philosophy?
Top-upvoted quotes across the subreddits where this book is mentioned. Click through to read the full thread.
“Fredrick Coplestone’s A History of Philosophy) is chronological, if I’m not mistaken. He was a Jesuit Priest, so there are some biases (like any writer), but they are not impossible to navigate. A quite secular professor of mine r…
“Looking at Philosophy by Donald Palmer is the intro book I routinely recommend. It provides digestible 4-5 page summarize of nigh-all the major thinkers of Western philosophy, hitting the high points of their s…
“You're right to find Russell's book quite inaccurate. Unfortunately – but perhaps unsurprisingly – there will never be a history of philosophy that is 'objective' in the sense of comprehensively and fairly representing the majority of philosophy to ever have taken place. Inevitably, an author's back…
“I'm going to reproduce my answer to a similar post, that I wrote for a complete beginner, with some adaptations for you. I hope it might help you. 1. Knowing the history of philosophy is good, important, and you shouldn't be ignoring the chronological order of things, but you can also study by …
“For a single volume general history, the aforementioned by Kenny is probably the best. For a single author / multi volume general history, the series *A History of Philosophy* by Copleston is probably the best. For a multi author / multi volume general history, the *Cambridge History of Philosophy* …
“For your needs, Copleston's History of Philosophy would be good, specifically volumes two and three, as these go over medieval philosophy.
“I'm far more of a lurker around here than a poster, but in this case I felt strongly enough that I ought to post. After 8 years of searching high and low in every used bookstore I'd ever been to, I finally did it. I finally acquired all volumes and parts of Copleston's History of Philosophy. I get t…
“Frederick Copleston's multi-volume *A History of Philosophy* seems like it would serve this purpose. The first book (containing 3 volumes) covers 'Greece and Rome', 'Augustine to Scotus', and 'Ockham to Suárez'.
Convinced? Pick up A History of Philosophy
What else does r/askphilosophy read?
Other books mentioned in the same sub, ranked. Shared-sub overlap with this title breaks ties.
Critique of Pure Reason
Immanuel Kant
Kant's 1781 attempt to settle the limits of human knowledge — the book that split philosophy in two and still hasn't been fully digested.
The Myth of Sisyphus
Albert Camus
A 1942 essay that opens with the question of whether life is worth living and ends by insisting Sisyphus is happy.
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Wittgenstein built a numbered ladder from logical atomism to the inexpressible, then said the ladder had to be discarded once you climbed it.
Being and Time
Martin Heidegger
Heidegger's argument that human existence only gets its meaning from death — 162 Reddit mentions, mostly from people explaining why it's so hard to read.
Nicomachean Ethics
Aristotle
Aristotle's 2,400-year-old argument that living well depends on virtue, leisure, and the company you keep — still the canonical text for the field.
Beyond Good and Evil
Friedrich Nietzsche
Nietzsche dismantles the moral framework Western civilization built on, then refuses to tell you what to replace it with.
A History of Philosophy — frequently asked
Is A History of Philosophy by Copleston better than Russell's History of Western Philosophy?+
Yes, according to r/askphilosophy. The ↑18 comment calling Russell's book "trash" and directing readers to "Read Coppleston or Kenny" is representative, not extreme. Across 15 mentions, no comment defends Russell over Copleston. The consensus is that Russell's work has known accuracy problems; Copleston's does not.
Does Copleston's History of Philosophy cover medieval philosophy well?+
Yes. Volumes two and three get named specifically in r/askphilosophy threads as the recommendation for medieval philosophy. That level of specificity — commenters citing individual volumes rather than the set generally — suggests readers have actually tested the coverage and found it reliable.
Does the Jesuit authorship make A History of Philosophy unreliable?+
Depends on the period, but probably not a dealbreaker. The ↑55 top comment on r/askphilosophy flags the bias directly, then calls it navigable — and notes a secular professor assigns it. No commenter in the 15-mention dataset treats the Catholic perspective as disqualifying.
Should I read all nine volumes of A History of Philosophy or just parts?+
Parts first. r/askphilosophy regularly cites specific volumes for specific needs — medieval philosophy sends you to volumes two and three. If you want a single-author multi-volume survey start to finish, Copleston is the recommended set; if you need one volume, the same threads point to Kenny instead.