Book · 1945
A History of Western Philosophy
by Bertrand Russell
Bertrand Russell surveys 2,500 years of philosophers and never once pretends he doesn't have favorites among them.
What does Reddit think of A History of Western Philosophy?
Read it as Russell's argument, not the history's index. That's the shape of the caveat that recurs across r/askphilosophy: a ↑79 comment likes the book but retitles it in passing — 'A History of Western Philosophy according to Bertrand Russell' — and says take it with a rather large grain of salt. A ↑75 comment goes further, calling it good and readable while flatly stating Russell isn't always the best historian, then naming Anthony Kenny's A New History of Western Philosophy as the more informed alternative. The polemical streak shows up elsewhere too: a ↑117 comment cites Russell's own accusation against Aquinas, that he only ever justified beliefs he already held, as an example of the book arguing a position rather than surveying one neutrally. Not every mention is a caveat. A ↑82 comment's suspicion of 'expansive surveys' reads as broader genre fatigue more than a verdict on this title specifically. Sentiment across both major subs sits flat, which fits a book people keep recommending with footnotes attached.
Community feedback & reader fit
Themes
- · Russell's own opinions standing in for neutral history
- · Anthony Kenny's A New History of Western Philosophy as the counter-pick
- · The Aquinas passage as a case study in Russell's selectivity
- · General fatigue with sweeping single-author surveys
Common praise
- + A ↑75 comment calls it good and readable despite flagging Russell's limits as a historian, which is still a recommendation, just a qualified one.
- + A ↑79 comment likes it enough to finish and describe honestly, catching the bias without walking back the enjoyment.
- + Russell's own prose gets quoted directly and at length (↑73) defining philosophy as intermediate between theology and science, the kind of passage people don't bother pulling from books they think fail.
Common criticism
- − Two separate comments (↑79, ↑75) land independently on the same fix: read it as Russell's opinion of the canon, not a neutral history of it.
- − A ↑75 comment names a direct alternative, Anthony Kenny's A New History of Western Philosophy, as the more informed choice.
- − The Aquinas passage (↑117) gets cited as an example of Russell accusing a philosopher of arguing backward from faith, the same move critics make against Russell's own selectivity here.
Who it's for
Want Russell's opinions dressed as history, argued in his own confident prose? That's exactly what a ↑79 comment says you're getting, and it likes the deal anyway. Need your survey neutral rather than personality-driven? The ↑75 comment's alternative, Anthony Kenny's A New History of Western Philosophy, is the direct swap Reddit itself proposes. Philosophy students hunting a quick citation for what Russell actually said about a given thinker will find the Aquinas passage (↑117) works exactly that way in practice. Approach the whole book the way r/askphilosophy does: readable, opinionated, worth footnoting rather than trusting outright.
Mentions over time
Top subreddits
Which Reddit comments matter for A History of Western Philosophy?
The most relevant excerpts across the subreddits where this book is mentioned — opinionated, argued takes first, then top-upvoted mentions. Click through to read the full thread.
“Bertrand Russel History of Western Philosophy A staple text that summarises the key moments of western (no eastern) thinking into the mid 20th century
“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.
“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*
“Popkin's Columbia History of Western Philosophy is considerably better, imo. Russell's is quite skewed at times
“Bertrand Russell's book is a very biased history. He makes no effort to keep his personal feelings about the figures he discusses out of the book. I didn't like it for that reason. I read "A New History of Western Philosophy" by Anthony Kenny when I first got into philosophy and loved it. Of all th…
“Yeah... I agree, Bertrand Russell is to blame for the popularisation of the term. I mean he as a philosopher of his time he has nothing to blame as an individual (especially after having to stand Wittgenstein all day) but I find his work too prominent still to this day. Every friend I have that is s…
“I would not suggest Russel’s history. For example getting info about Nietzsche and Hegel can more hurt you then help you. Kenny wrote Modern History of Western Philosophy and it is not as biased as Russell one.
“People tend to find it accessible, but Russell's scholarship on the historical sources is often fairly poor, and what you often end up getting is more just Russell's own philosophical views with the historical sources being just occasions for Russell to write about his own views. If you want a sing…
“Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy is an excellent, lucid introduction to some of the major trends in European philosophy. Fun fact: he wrote it because he needed money
“I started with Bertrand Russell's history of western philosophy. It's a great overview and you'll find certain eras or thinkers that pique your interest
“This is a common recommendation, and it's actually where I started, as I found it in a charity shop but... I'm not sure I would recommend it as a beginners' text retrospectively. It's less of a *history of Western philosophy* and more of *Russell gives you his takes on Western philosophy* and he sk…
“Bertrand Russell - The Problems of Philosophy This was the first book set to us on our undergraduate course. You can also supplement it with Russell’s History of Western Philosophy. Both produce excellent overviews of the history and devel…
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.
Guides featuring A History of Western Philosophy
Ranked best-of lists and editorial guides where this book's tracked mentions place it.
A History of Western Philosophy — frequently asked
Is A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell reliable as actual history?+
Not entirely, and Reddit says so directly. A ↑75 comment calls it good and readable while stating plainly that Russell isn't always the best historian, then points toward Anthony Kenny's A New History of Western Philosophy for something more informed. A ↑79 comment adds the same caveat: enjoy it, but with a large grain of salt.
Does A History of Western Philosophy treat Aquinas fairly?+
Debatable, and the debate is on the record. A ↑117 comment describes Russell accusing Aquinas of only ever justifying beliefs he already held as a Christian, then notes that's an accusation, not a neutral historical claim, worth weighing rather than accepting outright.
Is A History of Western Philosophy worth reading even though it's biased?+
Yes, according to readers who name the bias and keep reading anyway. A ↑79 comment likes the book while relabeling it Russell's personal history rather than the history, which is closer to an honest recommendation than a takedown.