Book · 1945
A History of Western Philosophy
by Bertrand Russell
Bertrand Russell recaps 2,500 years of philosophy from ancient Greece to logical positivism, with opinions — many of them wrong, all of them readable.
What does Reddit think of A History of Western Philosophy?
The subreddit's relationship with the book is a specific one: it gets recommended, then immediately qualified. The qualification is always the same — this is Russell's history, not the history. An r/askphilosophy commenter at ↑79 puts it plainly: treat it with a large grain of salt. The same sub at ↑82 argues you outgrow survey books quickly in favour of secondary literature on specific eras. Russell's Aquinas sections get cited (↑117) as an example of polemics dressed as history. r/philosophy adds a useful footnote: Russell's writing grew more lucid as he aged, and the book was composed in his early 70s, which explains the prose style that makes it readable even when it's wrong. Sentiment across all 60 mentions is roughly neutral.
Community feedback & reader fit
Themes
- · Philosophy as intellectual history
- · Russell's bias as an embedded feature
- · Survey books vs. specialist secondary literature
- · The gap between accessibility and accuracy
- · Logical positivism and analytic philosophy
Common praise
- + r/askphilosophy consistently recommends it as a starting point, citing readability across dozens of threads.
- + Russell's late-career prose style — succinct and direct — makes a 900-page survey move faster than it has any right to.
- + The book surfaces the historical and political context behind philosophical movements in a way dryer academic texts don't bother with.
- + r/askphilosophy (↑73) quotes Russell's own definition of philosophy to illustrate how well he contextualises the discipline.
Common criticism
- − r/askphilosophy (↑79) says to take it with a large grain of salt — Russell is not always the best historian.
- − Anthony Kenny's A New History of Western Philosophy gets cited (↑75) as the more accurate alternative.
- − The Aquinas sections specifically are flagged (↑117) as Russell prosecuting a case rather than reporting one.
- − r/askphilosophy (↑82) argues you outgrow this kind of expansive survey quickly, once you know which eras actually interest you.
Who it's for
You want to know what philosophy is before committing to any particular tradition. This is the book for that, with the caveat that you're reading Russell's views of the tradition, not a neutral account. If Aquinas, medieval philosophy, or continental thought is where you're heading, read this and then immediately find a corrective. r/askphilosophy recommends it in 50 separate threads, which is not nothing — but nearly every recommendation comes with the grain-of-salt disclaimer attached.
Mentions over time
Top subreddits
Which Reddit comments matter for A History of Western Philosophy?
Top-upvoted quotes across the subreddits where this book is mentioned. Click through to read the full thread.
“Bertrand Russell stated this approach openly in his *History of Western Philosophy* (composed in his early 70s during WWII). His writing style in his 30s and 40s was overly-eloquent and full of $10 words. His later writings are succinct and straightforward. Perhaps by that time he felt he had noth…
“There are two questions at play getting mixed up here. The first one is: was Aquinas was always a Christian even before he became a philosopher, and therefore only ever justified what he already believed in (Russell aims the same accusation at him in his *History of Western Philosophy*)? The second …
“Tbh I find you outgrow these kinds of extremely expansive surveys relatively quickly in favour of secondary literature concerning shorter eras or specific authors. I'm always suspicious of things claiming to introduce (a wide swathe of) western philosophy. The more famous examples show a lot of th…
“I really like Russell's book, but it's more "A History of Western Philosophy _according to Bertrand Russell_" than anything else. It's a good read, but take it with a rather large grain of salt.
“For YouTube recommendations, see this FAQ post. For Podcasts, see this FAQ post For "whe…
“Yeah, sure, it's good and readable, though it gives Russell's views of things, and he's not always the best historian. A bit more informed might be Anthony Kenny's *A New History of Western Philosophy*
“Knowing that it's a massively broad subject, I wouldn't worry too much about building a massive reading list right away - it's okay to pick something you're interested in and go down a rabbit hole. I'm into ethical and political stuff, so I've cooked up a short list of what I think are a good set …
“Bertrand Russell puts it like this: >Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reas…
Convinced? Pick up A History of Western Philosophy
Readers also mention
Books that share discussion threads with A History of Western Philosophy — counted from the comments, not curated.
A History of Philosophy
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.
Think
Simon Blackburn
Simon Blackburn's Cambridge introduction to philosophy — the book that once prompted one reader to change their major from Business Administration to Philosophy.
The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Bertrand Russell wrote a 90-page intro to analytic philosophy in 1912 and r/askphilosophy still hands it to newcomers first, every time.
Sophie's World
Jostein Gaarder
A teenage girl in Norway starts receiving anonymous philosophy lessons by mail and slowly realizes she might be a character in someone else's story.
Meditations
Marcus Aurelius
The Roman emperor's private notebook — written to himself in Greek, never meant to be published — became the Stoic canon's most-cited text 1,800 years later.
A History of Western Philosophy — frequently asked
Is A History of Western Philosophy accurate?+
No, not reliably. r/askphilosophy is direct about this across multiple threads: the book reflects Russell's views of philosophers, not dispassionate history. The ↑117 comment singles out the Aquinas sections as an example of Russell convicting someone he's supposed to be describing. Kenny's A New History of Western Philosophy is cited as the more careful alternative. Read Russell for the writing; verify the claims separately.
What does Reddit think of A History of Western Philosophy as a beginner text?+
Broadly recommended, with a standing qualifier. r/askphilosophy (50 of the 60 total mentions) recommends it consistently as an accessible entry point, but the ↑82 comment notes you outgrow survey books quickly once you develop actual interests. The practical advice from the sub: use it to find which eras and thinkers interest you, then move to specialist secondary literature.
How does A History of Western Philosophy compare to Kenny's A New History of Western Philosophy?+
r/askphilosophy treats Kenny as the more rigorous option. The ↑75 comment puts it plainly: Russell is good and readable, Kenny is more informed. Russell's book is easier and has more personality; Kenny's is more trustworthy on the historical details. If you want accuracy over entertainment, Kenny. If you want to actually finish a survey of the whole tradition, Russell.
Should I read A History of Western Philosophy cover to cover?+
r/askphilosophy is equivocal. Several threads recommend it as a complete read; the ↑82 comment argues you shouldn't build massive reading lists at all and should follow specific interests down rabbit holes instead. The book works as a cover-to-cover read for someone who genuinely doesn't know where to start. For anyone with a particular philosophical interest already, targeted secondary literature will serve better.