User Review - Flag as inappropriate
Logician, mathematician, athiest, and either the poorest or most biased reader in the history of philosophy. I received this book just as I entered graduate school. As I would be reading many of those represented in the book throughout the semester, I thought that I would read the famed Russell along with them. It did not take me long to begin to question whether the publisher had mislabeled the chapters. Admittedly, everyone has their idiosyncratic readings. It is not unreasonable, however, for a scholar to keep his biases to him or herself when putatively introducing philosophers, often to new comers or relative new comers. Russell is not the only such writer to allow his own views to bleed into such works; after all, there is no doubt that F. Coppleston has his Catholic bias. Yet, to say that Russell's views bled into the text is something of an understatement. He must have had some serious wounds, perhaps having been attacked by his rabid dogmatism. This is not a book for those who want to learn the views of philosophers. If you want to know what Russell thought of the history of Western philosophy, more power to you. But you will be misled, if you rely upon his interpretations, not to mention his failure to interpret. I am speaking in particular of his failure to even mention Nietzsche, in 895 pages on the topic of philosophers. Be kind to Mother Earth, save a bunch of trees by ignoring this work into the dustbins of philosophical tripe.