Review of Russell's History of Western Philosophy

Russell is too obsessed with being correct to be right.

It is a laudable work, for his comprehension of History and his ability to condense these complex works into 1,000 or so pages is an incredible feat of mind.

I do not recommend people read this as their first work, but those who have a grasp of what he’s talking about beforehand can learn a lot!

He would not object to the critique — the critique most people have of this work — that it is his history of philosophy, and not to be read like a textbook.

His critiques of these philosophers feel like quips and insults made to paint himself as a genius (which I do think he is, but he’s not as smart as he wants you to believe). While I could go case by case critiquing his critiques (and might someday), I will say this as an overarching theme of his work.

Russell began his philosophical journey questioning religion; one could imagine him at the back of the chapel yelling at the minister, “but but but that isn’t true”. If he were growing up today he would be Alex O’Connor. He never really seems to shift from this view, as opposed to O’Connor, who has grown into quite a beautiful thinker. Russell always seems to be looking for a complete theory of the world, and judges others on whether or not they have produced one. He performs these grandiose logical destructions of arguments which miss the reason to employ those arguments in the first place. Hegel isn’t the only historiography; Dewey doesn’t imply that everyone should follow his epistemic lead; these systems of thought are all useful, and can be appreciated as such. If your critique centres around juxtaposing your genius with Y’s stupidity, it loses its metaphysical relevance and just becomes a destructive bullfight to market an ego.