Review of The History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell

Russell seems unreasonably fond of Rousseau, who was an influential dude for the time, but not someone I would invite over.

social dynamics sway Russell’s narrative as much as Rousseau’s work swayed Europe’s intellectual trends of the time.
Russell spends quite a lot of time talking about the succession of the first popes. Talks more of history in the Middle Ages than philosophy.
Nearly everything he says is interesting. Few points are questionable. The questionable parts often relate to the politics of philosophers, rather than their stated philosophies. Where he disagrees with a philosophical standpoint, he usually brings in science or later logical theory to support his claim.
The first 3rd serves as a nice primer of Plato and Aristotle.
It takes about 40% of the volume to get to Aquinas. That tells you have much time is spent on people and times before 1200. Not much is reviewed when it comes to Aquinas. Russell seems to choose his favorites and gloss over many great thinkers. This is inevitable since a full treatment of all philosophers would encompass many volumes.
Certain Ancient philosophers seem only important now within their context. Even Aristotle is largely fallacious in countless areas. Rather, Russell seeks to demonstrate how Thales and other early purveyors of knowledge took slow steps toward Empiricism, which culminated in Locke. Rather too much is made of Roger Bacon, and Epicureanism, which despite its popularity, barely exists as a body of knowledge.
He omits Kierkegaard, and leaves much unsaid about modern philosophers, who do more to shape our thinking than the superseded examples of the past.
Perhaps he is rather too concerned with the foibles of Catholicism and its wishy-washy quibbles during the initial centuries.
Once can read Aquinas and Augustine, in my opinion, and disregard a lot of others like Anselm and Calvin, unless one is really, really into Catholicism. Plato and Aristotle and Diogenes Laertius are my choices for Ancient philosophy, along with Seneca.
He forgets Montaigne entirely.
His definition of philosopher is inconsistent. Who would think to bring up Voltaire, who was primarily a satirist?
We see large compendiums of Western philosophy like this, but not so many for Eastern philosophy, which is arguably more difficult, older, more wild and imaginative, and possibly less intelligible. The systematic influence of Arabic commentators is downplayed, though Western Philosophy may not have gotten its feet under it if it weren’t for them.
Aside from those already listed, I enjoy learning about Hegel, Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein, Kant, Heidegger, Nietzsche, and Kierkegaard. But this book is not the place to learn about these gents.
I did learn more about Locke, Hume, Hobbs, Berkeley, and Dewey. There’s a decent slice of them here.
Not so for Bergson, Camus, Sartre and later philosophers. Look elsewhere.
As far as philosophical books go, it’s not dense. Though it can waver between history and philosophical summary, it is a decent resource on the subject. It might spark an interest in certain people, but it will be necessary to dig deeper to come to a substantial understanding of any one school of thought. His style is smooth and readable. Other reviewers complain about his opinion leaking into it, but I found him largely impartial – or his opinion of a given philosopher was orthodox.
Recommended. Especially if you cannot read the 9-volume History of Western Philosophy by Coppelston.