This review is two-fold.
The book as product is simply gorgeous. 5 stars review if evere there were any for audiobooks' quality. Audio is perfect; graphic design of the cover is elegant and accurate; the narrator impersonates the very core or Russell's witty but serious personality, even conveying the author's respect or contempt for a philosopher through the tone of voice used during quotations of direct passages.

This last peculiarity of the book as a product opens to the principal characetristic of the book as a piece of thought. The title of this work is deceiving. What Russell wrote is not a HISTORY, but a CRITIQUE of Western philosophy, conceived by the point of view of the school of thought of which he was part, analytic empiricism. The work has been defined biased, first of all by Russell himself who advocated for intellectual honesty and considered calls for impartiality, in matters such as view of the worls of the basis of ethics, as contradictory and dangerously deceptive. I agree so much with his opinions in this regard, that I will go as far as saying that it is not bias what is regularly, coherently and openly stated as the view of the writer.
And believe me, you can tell Russell's views from one mile away! He demolishes Plato, Romanticism, Nietzsche, Schopenauer, Fichte and Bergson, to name some. There is a plan in this critique, and it becomes clear in the last few chapters, when he explains how, in his opinions, analytica philosophy solves the internal inconsistency of all the past philosophical schools and thinkers that tried to explain existence, and provide ethical guidance, in one great system based on metaphisics. In my opinion, recognising this feature of the work answers to the critiques about the unbalance between the stance taken in the three historical periods in which he divides the History of Philosophy: classical times, Middle Ages and modernity. I will not go into details, as many reviewers with a better historical and philosophical culture than mine have already written about the question. There is a lot of imprecision and too much generalisation, in my opinion, in delineating historical frameworks and in judging the Scholastic school, for example. Well, that was the state of the art regarding Medieval thought, at Russell's time, and anyway I forgive him all his flaws because I share much of his bias, except that I am an unrepented Marxist of Maoist tendencies... What I love in Russell is his honesty, his human empathy, his concern for the irrationalistic tendency and for the despise of patient analysis that characterised his times: keep in mind that he wrote during WWII. Not that OUR times are much more promising.
Whether you think he was right or not, this book makes for an enthralling listening (or reading) and still constitutes a classic of popularisation. Well, half-way popularisation; if you have no clue of what Western philosophy is, I would give advice for other books as a first general recognition.
Then, when you feel ready, come back and read this book. ( )

I love Russel and his insightful presentation of the last few thousand years of philosophy is well structured even if overly historicised
.
The problem is this book was from lectures written to the late 40’s and it leaves a gap that is just too wide for it to feel current. It is interesting in what main issues sre identified that are relevant today, but it also misses many others, the world philosophical issues have gone far beyond what is described and there remains a vast gap.
I wouod read a different history of philosophy despite my admiration for the author and his work. ( )

Quando l'ho iniziato non mi ha colpito molto: "il solito libro di filosofia" ho pensato. Poi, pian piano, si è rivelato per quello che è: un GRAN BEL libro di filosofia, scritto bene (anche se la traduzione su alcuni punti un po' barcolla), spiegato benissimo, dove i giudizi sono personalissimi, condivisibili o meno ma sempre giustificati e sostenuti da ottimi spunti logici (e filosofici). Peccato sia stato scritto durante la seconda guerra mondiale e quindi sostanzialmente si fermi a Marx, lasciando Wittgenstein e Aaarendt (ad esempio) fuori.
Molto bello, veramente. ( )

Bertrand Russell se guió en esta obra por el más ajustado sentido de la unidad histórica y estudió a cada filósofo en relación con el medio en que actuó, teniendo siempre en cuenta las circunstancias sociales y políticas de su época.

This was a long and dry book, but worth the read if you study philosophy. I wouldn't recommend this to beginners or people just interested in the topic. It's difficult reading and very opinionated. Keep in mind beforehand that this was written during WWII and it shows with the non-stop comparing to Hitler. To some, this is a turn off, but Russell really didn't like Hitler and was worried about people who abused philosophy at the time. In some ways, I can see how 2020 isn't that different since people seem to fear logic and embrace optimistic nostalgia a little too much.

There's a lot to take in here though. It's obvious Russell is a philosopher and isn't playing around. He likes a lot of them, but at the same time he can see the flaws in most of them. Take Plato. I liked the fact he understands Plato is one of the "fathers" of philosophy, but he also understands Plato is dated or wrong with some of his ideas. Russell isn't shy at pointing out most of these respected philosophers have backwards ideas about women, however, Russell could have talk more about women philosophy himself in this book.

Russell has a mini bio about each person he focuses on before he talks about the philosophy. I liked that part because I believe knowing about these guys helps. I see a lot of people just focus on their philosophy and seem not to care about them. Yet, unlike some fiction, the way these men think has a lot to do with their past. I have yet to read John Dewy, but Russell brings up the fact he is from New England (Vermont) and his philosophy shows that at times.

I love Russell a lot. Not sure he's my favorite philosopher, but he's not that far off from my love for Spinoza. ( )