Philosophy

The History of Philosophy

The History of Philosophy

  • Downloads：9249
  • Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
  • Create Date：2021-07-28 09:54:13
  • Update Date：2025-09-07
  • Status：finish
  • Author：A.C. Grayling
  • ISBN：0241304547
  • Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
  • Download

Summary

'Updating Bertrand Russell for the 21st century 。 。 。 a cerebrally enjoyable survey， written with great clarity and touches of wit 。 。 。 The non-western section throws up some fascinating revelations'
Sunday Times

The story of philosophy is an epic tale: an exploration of the ideas， views and teachings of some of the most creative minds known to humanity。 But since the long-popular classic Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy， first published in 1945， there has been no comprehensive and entertaining， single-volume history of this great intellectual journey。

With his characteristic clarity and elegance A。 C。 Grayling takes the reader from the world-views and moralities before the age of the Buddha， Confucius and Socrates， through Christianity's dominance of the European mind to the Renaissance and Enlightenment， and on to Mill， Nietzsche， Sartre， and philosophy today。 And， since the story of philosophy is incomplete without mention of the great philosophical traditions of India， China and the Persian-Arabic world， he gives a comparative survey of them too。

Intelligible for students and eye-opening for philosophy readers， he covers epistemology， metaphysics， ethics， aesthetics， logic， the philosophy of mind， the philosophy of language， political philosophy and the history of debates in these areas of enquiry， through the ideas of the celebrated philosophers as well as less well-known influential thinkers。 He also asks what we have learnt from this body of thought， and what progress is still to be made。

The first authoritative and accessible single-volume history of philosophy for decades， remarkable for its range and clarity， this is a landmark work。

Download

Reviews

Roberto Yoed ，

No History of Philosophy is even close of Hegel’s one。

Matthew Nissen ，

Phenomenal book。 Some may disagree with parts of it， but with such a huge undertaking it did the best that could be done。 10/10

Dan Giffney ，

The book is written very well and covers many different philosophers in an accessible way。The ancient philosophers were fantastic and really fun to read about。 In terms of more modern philosophy; the sections on Wittgenstein and the other philosophers on language and philosophy of mind were particularly good and highlighted to me that some other philosophers were kinda trash and seemed to be making up word games that used linguistic determinism to give their theories a whole set of terms that ma The book is written very well and covers many different philosophers in an accessible way。The ancient philosophers were fantastic and really fun to read about。 In terms of more modern philosophy; the sections on Wittgenstein and the other philosophers on language and philosophy of mind were particularly good and highlighted to me that some other philosophers were kinda trash and seemed to be making up word games that used linguistic determinism to give their theories a whole set of terms that make them more dogmatic and difficult to falsify。Or maybe I'm just too dumb to understand those theories。 I definitely need to go through my notes on this book and re-read a few sections。I'm looking forward to reading frontiers of knowledge 。。。more

Llan Almendariz ，

Dry info as but gives a nice overview

Steven ，

Comprehensive。 Intelligible。 Diverse。 What more is there to say？ It's everything I wanted it to be。 Comprehensive。 Intelligible。 Diverse。 What more is there to say？ It's everything I wanted it to be。 。。。more

Lukas op de Beke ，

I rate this book higher than Bertrand Russell's classic。 Grayling says more using fewer words， that is the main difference。 Another difference is that Grayling is much clearer and stricter about what he considers to be philosophy and what not。 I recall from Russell's book that he is too permissive with regard to Medieval philosophers; much of what they wrote does not deserve the name philosophy。 The same holds true for many continental philosophers。 Lastly， Grayling's range is wider — though of I rate this book higher than Bertrand Russell's classic。 Grayling says more using fewer words， that is the main difference。 Another difference is that Grayling is much clearer and stricter about what he considers to be philosophy and what not。 I recall from Russell's book that he is too permissive with regard to Medieval philosophers; much of what they wrote does not deserve the name philosophy。 The same holds true for many continental philosophers。 Lastly， Grayling's range is wider — though of course he benefits from the passage of time — including also a lucid summary （not an easy feat） of a large chunk of the history of analytic philosophy as well as some continental philosophy。 I do think Grayling should have included a summary of Foucault， surely one of the most important among his ilk。 It is strange that he included Derrida， given his lack of any substantial philosophical views and arguments。Parts that stood out for me were the chapters on Hume and Kant and the chapter on analytic philosophy in its entirety。 。。。more

Parker ，

I wrote a very long review of this book and then lost it。 I will never get that hour back， and I don't have the energy to put in another hour of work to rewrite it。 Suffice it to say that I enjoyed this book， even though （as I see it） there are glaring and fundamental problems with it。 I wrote a very long review of this book and then lost it。 I will never get that hour back， and I don't have the energy to put in another hour of work to rewrite it。 Suffice it to say that I enjoyed this book， even though （as I see it） there are glaring and fundamental problems with it。 。。。more

Michael Reilly ，

First third。 I try not to eat the entire 1lb box of fudge at once。 I also try not to read a six hundred page history of the last 2700 years of philosophy in one go。 The title is a little off putting。 Even Russell went with "History of Western Philosophy"。 He didn't include the definitive "The"。 Philosophy is not the type of thing that you can write "The" history of。 （Is there anything that you can write "The" history of？ Grayling has me in a philosophical mood。） Grayling has done a very hard job First third。 I try not to eat the entire 1lb box of fudge at once。 I also try not to read a six hundred page history of the last 2700 years of philosophy in one go。 The title is a little off putting。 Even Russell went with "History of Western Philosophy"。 He didn't include the definitive "The"。 Philosophy is not the type of thing that you can write "The" history of。 （Is there anything that you can write "The" history of？ Grayling has me in a philosophical mood。） Grayling has done a very hard job very well。 The first two hundred pages cover the Pre-Socratics， Socrates， Plato， Aristotle， the Romans， the later Greeks， and the Medieval and Renaissance philosophers。 Grayling starts his discussion of each philosopher or school of philosophers with the historical context and brief biographical sketches。 He summarizes the principal ideas and places them in the context of philosophical history。 He is patient and clear in outlining the writings。 His goal， first of all， is to help us understand what the philosophers meant and why they believed it。 He points out problems with the arguments but he does not see it as his job to explain why or if he disagrees。 Grayling quotes the British philosopher A。 N。 Whitehead who said that Western philosophy consisted of "footnotes to Plato"。 This history bears that out。 Through the 2000 years from Plato to Machiavelli， philosophers were lining themselves up in relationship either to Plato or his student Aristotle， who defined himself in opposition to his teacher Plato。 The Catholic Church first tried to destroy "pagan" philosophy and ended up embracing it。 The battles of medieval monks and priests were battles between Plato and Aristotle。 It is easy to forget that much of the writings of ancient philosophers has been lost。 The Catholic Church went through several centuries of book burning in the early Middle Ages。 Pagan books were blasphemous and should be destroyed。 A huge number of works did not survive。 Even Aristotle only had somewhere between 25% to 35% of his writings survive。 No works survive for many of the lesser known Greeks and most of the Pre-Socratics。 All we know about their theories is what commentators writing hundreds of years later said， or short quotes found in other works， or what later critics of their works said when attacking them。 Grayling is very good at outlining how historians piece together the views of philosophers based on these hints。 He also emphasizes how tentative these opinions are。 He discusses several instances where recent discoveries change our understanding of what a philosopher was saying over 2000 years ago。 The value of this kind of book is the sparks it sets off。 For example;Grayling says that Saint Augustine anticipated Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum"， I think therefore I am， by hundreds of years when he said， "Fallor ergo sum"， I am deceived therefore I am。 Saint Augustine's version seems more modern。 Xenophanes in 450 BC said" if oxen or horses had hands， and could paint with their hands， and produce works of art as men do， horses would paint the forms of the gods as horses， and oxen like oxen。" That's a pretty good analysis of classic European art which painted Jesus as a handsome European。 He makes a good distinction。 "If the starting point for reflection is the acceptance of a religious doctrine， then the reflection that follows is theology， or theodicy， or exegesis， or casuistry， or apologetics， or hermeneutics， but it is not philosophy" That is his explanation for spending very little time on most of the Medieval writings of the Church Fathers。 Grayling outlines the difference between ethics and morality。 "Morality is about our actions， duties， and obligations whereas ethics is about what sort of person one is。" It is why "Legal Ethics"， a subject I am interested in， is a misnomer。 It once was about whether an attorney had the good character to be trusted with the powers of a lawyer。 It was about what kind of person they were。 It is now about whether the person follows the letter of the rules that regulate the practice of law。 A smart lawyer can be ethical in the new sense while being completely unethical in the sense Grayling outlines。 Vocabulary word。 Humanistic education has "recently been abandoned for more practical and "banausic" aims。" "Banausic" means mechanical or routine。 It is related to "Banal" but has a different shade of meaning。 It is one of those words that my spell check insists is a typo。） Grayling is a distinguished philosopher。 He is a splendid guide。 。。。more

Tim Guy ，

I just got AC Grayling’d

Amaan Pirani ，

+ academic and nuanced - really felt like I understood the nuances of different philosophers arguments （and their shortcomings） + I really liked the general overviews of each philosophical tradition -i went into this book excited because it was written specifically for a common audience。。。 To be honest this book is poorly written for a common audienceA。 It delves far too deeply into topics like logic and far too little into topics that would be most relatable to a common audience like ethicsB。 I + academic and nuanced - really felt like I understood the nuances of different philosophers arguments （and their shortcomings） + I really liked the general overviews of each philosophical tradition -i went into this book excited because it was written specifically for a common audience。。。 To be honest this book is poorly written for a common audienceA。 It delves far too deeply into topics like logic and far too little into topics that would be most relatable to a common audience like ethicsB。 Its structure goes from philosopher to philosopher， instead of from topic to topic （like how some comparable books cover the subject） making it hard to follow the interplay between different ideas。 C。 The text is a bit too dry at times + Overall I buy the author's thesis about philosophy vs theology and the role each has to play 。。。more

Abu Syakireen ，

It is a great book that talk on the evolution of human thinking in recorded history。 It show how establish philosophy of the ancient era influence and evolve into the modern thinking。 It also show the meaning of philosophy as well as the branching of other part of knowledge。 And the best part of the book to me is that it included the philosophy of other civilization and what it become through the course of time。 Albiet only in one chapter。 Although it is a great book， it is hard for me to digest It is a great book that talk on the evolution of human thinking in recorded history。 It show how establish philosophy of the ancient era influence and evolve into the modern thinking。 It also show the meaning of philosophy as well as the branching of other part of knowledge。 And the best part of the book to me is that it included the philosophy of other civilization and what it become through the course of time。 Albiet only in one chapter。 Although it is a great book， it is hard for me to digest as I am a person with a science background。 I could see the surface of the argument but cannot understand it deeply。 I could understand the problem but could get its argument。 For me， that is the problem I am facing while reeding this thick book 。。。more

CK ，

Essentially a compilation of "XX philosophy: A very short introduction" into one book。 The scope is extremely impressive， covering ancient Greek to modern times， with added bonuses of Eastern and African philosophy。 The author is also very helpful in setting up the cultural contexts which gave birth to the ideas， as well as in explaining and clarifying terms which may be confusing to readers。 As a survey of philosophy， I think it is inevitable that space is an issue， but devoting only 6-7 pages Essentially a compilation of "XX philosophy: A very short introduction" into one book。 The scope is extremely impressive， covering ancient Greek to modern times， with added bonuses of Eastern and African philosophy。 The author is also very helpful in setting up the cultural contexts which gave birth to the ideas， as well as in explaining and clarifying terms which may be confusing to readers。 As a survey of philosophy， I think it is inevitable that space is an issue， but devoting only 6-7 pages to discuss Kant， Marx or Nietzsche is scratching the surface too thin。。。 So for me， this book serves more like a （secular） philosophy curriculum outline / bibliography for further study than anything else; one cannot even begin to have any meaningful conversation with friends with so little covered for each character。 Finally， the author's biases and prejudice against religion （particularly Christianity） really shows， which is unfortunately for a work like this。 This bias inevitably affects how he interprets certain ideas and historical events （for example he spends disproportionately more air time in personally refuting the Medieval thinkers which he doesn't do in other sections）， as well as his selection of what to include or not。 。。。more

Max ，

This book properly encapsulates many of the major thinkers in the history of philosophy in a way that is accessible yet sufficiently detailed。 I cannot recommend this book enough to anyone who is interested in the history of philosophy。

Jon ，

Basically an updated version of Bertrand Russell’s work。

Martin Whitworth ，

It is disappointing that the author has allowed his humanist prejudice to spoil what is otherwise a good attempt at a popular review of this topic。 Exclusion of religious philosophy，although deliberate and explicit， is a major omission。And I’ve always been sceptical of the value of philosophy。 But I’m sufficiently open minded to think maybe I’m missing something， and therefore to commit to read such a long book。 It has been instructive about the history of the subject， but has confirmed my belie It is disappointing that the author has allowed his humanist prejudice to spoil what is otherwise a good attempt at a popular review of this topic。 Exclusion of religious philosophy，although deliberate and explicit， is a major omission。And I’ve always been sceptical of the value of philosophy。 But I’m sufficiently open minded to think maybe I’m missing something， and therefore to commit to read such a long book。 It has been instructive about the history of the subject， but has confirmed my belief that philosophy has no value in the modern world， amounts to debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin， and that we should not waste public funds on it。 。。。more

Pranay ，

It was a long， hard and slow read。 I don't think I could follow quite a bit of it。 But it helps paint a great arc of how philosophy developed and how people's thoughts on some of our basic questions have developed over time。 It was a long， hard and slow read。 I don't think I could follow quite a bit of it。 But it helps paint a great arc of how philosophy developed and how people's thoughts on some of our basic questions have developed over time。 。。。more

Randy Wambold ，

It's been since my undergraduate days when I minored in philosophy that I've read a survey/history of philosophy style text。 And I forgot both how helpful it is to have philosophy presented as an evolving story of fits and starts， reaction and counterreaction; but also how frustrating it can be to go a mile wide and an inch deep without ever really delving deeply into the issues that capture your attention。 But this is more a commentary on the form than Grayling's particular rendering of it。As f It's been since my undergraduate days when I minored in philosophy that I've read a survey/history of philosophy style text。 And I forgot both how helpful it is to have philosophy presented as an evolving story of fits and starts， reaction and counterreaction; but also how frustrating it can be to go a mile wide and an inch deep without ever really delving deeply into the issues that capture your attention。 But this is more a commentary on the form than Grayling's particular rendering of it。As for Grayling himself， in this reader's opinion he adds just the right amount of stylist prose to liven things up without risking distraction from the subject matter。 There are the occasional moments when you think "insufferable stuffy academic snob" - as when he condescendingly takes a non sequitur footnote left turn to chide those who thought that the eve oi the year 2000 was the end of the millenium rather than the following year - the horror！ - but then given he is an actual professor of Philosophy at Oxford I think I am impressed that those moments were relatively few and far between。But mostly he writes to educate and inform， offering the arguments and counter-arguments of a given philosopher helpfully and clearly。 John Kaag said it best in his back cover blurb - Grayling loved writing this book and it shows。 What better compliment could you give a book like this。I say "mostly" he writes to educate and inform because my one beef is with Grayling's anti-religious strain。 I have no problem with the author of a History of Philosophy being an atheist and stating that up front。 What I have a problem with is when that author lets his own beliefs influence what he writes。 Writes Grayling toward the end of the book， regarding "thinkers who find their solutions in some form of theological or theistic commitment": "On the grounds that such a commitment is no solution to the problems of philosophy， I do not include religious thinkers among philosophers， at least without qualification。" This statement is false on its face - of course until relatively recently all philosophers had some sort of theological or theistic commitment。 Grayling's own History of Philosophy includes many， many philosophers with decidedly religious bent - Aquinas and Augustine in medieval times; Wittgenstein in the 20th century and Macintyre in our own time。 Agree or disagree with their philosophy， that's fine - but to argue they don't count as philosophers frankly strikes me as petty。It gets worse。 In the same passage Grayling continues， "For if there is an omnipotent， omniscient and eternal being then anything whatever is possible; 'all bets are off' as the saying has it; and therefore there is no point even in thinking about the problems given that the solution， even if incomprehensible， is already available without further thought necessary。" It is hard to know what to even do with a statement this general and hyperbolic。 Of course there are strains of religion that would seek to cut off thought。 But there is an equally strong strain of religion that has led to rich， nuanced and important thought about philosophy。 Again， Grayling's own text is bursting at the edges with philosophers who presumably by definition of being included in his History of Philosophy， by his own recognition made important contributions to this field of thought， and yet grounded that thought in theistic thinking。 It feels to me like Grayling would benefit from making a couple of thoughtful religious friends/colleagues。This qualification notwithstanding， this is an excellent， engaging work that I would recommend。 Just the right thing to bridge this reader from the holiday season， through cold， dark New England nights， to early Spring。 。。。more

Kieran McLoughlin ，

After wishing to get into a comprehensive study into philosophy after watching various explanations of certain kinds， I decided to take the punt and try this very comprehensive overview of western philosophy as it originated （at least in text） all the way to our current ways of thinking。 Overall， while the dives into the many different philosophies on view here can be and in many ways are understandably complex。 I don't blame the author on this aspect。 Philosophy is a complex and heavy subject i After wishing to get into a comprehensive study into philosophy after watching various explanations of certain kinds， I decided to take the punt and try this very comprehensive overview of western philosophy as it originated （at least in text） all the way to our current ways of thinking。 Overall， while the dives into the many different philosophies on view here can be and in many ways are understandably complex。 I don't blame the author on this aspect。 Philosophy is a complex and heavy subject in its own right。 As such， there's only so much you can elaborate and explain in this respect。 In all， if you want a comprehensive explanation to all things western philosophy， this is absolutely the book for you。 The narrator performs quite well （though I wasn't so sure on his rare ventures to the American accent） and I respect the authors unwillingness to delve too far into philosophy beyond the west due to not being as well versed on these philosophies。 I would like him to perhaps colloborate with academics who specialise in these philosophies so they could receive the same treatment。 In all， a very good read。 。。。more

Narendra Thendayuthabani ，

An excellent tour on western philosophy。 A very good book for those who wanted to know about the basics of philosophy。 Very well written。

Julius Lehtinen ，

Laskeskelin， että kirjoittaja mainitsi 21。 vuosisadan alkaneen vasta 1。1。 2001 kuusi tai seitsemän kertaa teoksen aikana， sillä vuosi 2000 kuului edelliseen vuosituhanteen。 Näistä jännittävistä knoppifiksaatioista huolimatta oikein mukiinmenevä ja kompakti yleiskatsaus （länsimaisen） filosofian historiaan ja kehitykseen。Paikoin tosin paistoi läpi ja jopa ääneen kehuskellen mainittiin sellainen militantti uusateismi， jonka vaikutuksesta muutamia filosofiankin kannalta keskeisiä henkilöitä， isoimpa Laskeskelin， että kirjoittaja mainitsi 21。 vuosisadan alkaneen vasta 1。1。 2001 kuusi tai seitsemän kertaa teoksen aikana， sillä vuosi 2000 kuului edelliseen vuosituhanteen。 Näistä jännittävistä knoppifiksaatioista huolimatta oikein mukiinmenevä ja kompakti yleiskatsaus （länsimaisen） filosofian historiaan ja kehitykseen。Paikoin tosin paistoi läpi ja jopa ääneen kehuskellen mainittiin sellainen militantti uusateismi， jonka vaikutuksesta muutamia filosofiankin kannalta keskeisiä henkilöitä， isoimpana vaikkapa Søren Kierkegaard， kieltäydyttiin käsittelemästä näiden uskonnollisuuden takia， mikä on toki sääli。 。。。more

Hans Ostrom ，

I haven't read many histories of （Western） philosophy。 Bertrand Russell and Wallace Matson， mainly， with dips into Durant。 This one seems a cut above and is especially good at placing philosophers in political and social contexts。 He notes that Christianity wiped out a huge number of manuscripts， so that （for instance） our knowledge of Democritus， who speculated about atoms， comes from other philosophers alluding to him。 He also shows how Muslim philosophers kept Aristotelian thought alive in ti I haven't read many histories of （Western） philosophy。 Bertrand Russell and Wallace Matson， mainly， with dips into Durant。 This one seems a cut above and is especially good at placing philosophers in political and social contexts。 He notes that Christianity wiped out a huge number of manuscripts， so that （for instance） our knowledge of Democritus， who speculated about atoms， comes from other philosophers alluding to him。 He also shows how Muslim philosophers kept Aristotelian thought alive in times when Christians suppressed or ignored it--until Augustine came along。 Grayling is a fine writer， lucid and witty， never parochial。 This will be my go to one volume H of P。 There some nice little gems here， including the fact that Augustine and Plotinus got to "cogito， ergo sum" way before Descartes。 The last part of the book surveys Indian， Chinese， and Arab/Persian philosophy。 。。。more

Petros ，

This book was much harder to read than I initially expected。 I expected something along the lines of a history of science book， but this was so much more than that。The author tries to explain the main points of philosophical ideas， tracing their evolution beginning from the presocratics in Ancient Greece of the 7th century BCE continuing through to the analytic and continental philosophy of the 20th century （and then providing short exposes of the Indian， Chinese and Arabic-Persian philosophical This book was much harder to read than I initially expected。 I expected something along the lines of a history of science book， but this was so much more than that。The author tries to explain the main points of philosophical ideas， tracing their evolution beginning from the presocratics in Ancient Greece of the 7th century BCE continuing through to the analytic and continental philosophy of the 20th century （and then providing short exposes of the Indian， Chinese and Arabic-Persian philosophical traditions of thought）。 He attempts to not just offer a superficial presentation of these ideas， but to actually explain them to an adequate degree for the reader to get a picture of the directions the thought of each thinker was moving towards， and spark interest in the further study of those ideas。From his writing it becomes evident how each subsequent （or parallel） thinker is to some （often large） extent aware of all the ideas that preceded him and is， in essence， in active conversation with them。 It is also evident how the thought of each thinker is shaped by his social/historical/technological/scientific environment， but also how philosophical ideas themselves shape that environment to a （far-from-negligible） degree。 As the centuries go by， and as a great body of thought gradually accumulates， the ideas become even more intricate and complex。So， as mentioned in the beginning， even to very roughly wrap one’s head around the ideas discussed can be quite a challenging endeavor。 But understanding some of the ideas， and also forming a （again， very rough and undoubtedly very simplistic） picture of their development through time， can be very rewarding。I absolutely loved this book。 Much more than I expected before I started reading it or suspected when I was a few dozens of pages into it。 It really helped me form the opinion that devoting some of my time in reading （and trying to understand） philosophy may be a meaningful investment。 It doesn’t lend itself to light reading， but if you’re willing to put in the effort to get a general idea of what philosophy is really about， I could not recommend it enough。 。。。more

Judith ，

a good start。。。now off to B Russell's a good start。。。now off to B Russell's 。。。more

Grof J。 Kešetović ，

A pretty decent compilation of all of philosophical work done troughout time。 I do notice that there was a lack of proper continuity in how these philosophical works influenced one another and how did the human thought evolve into such ideas。 But since it is very approachable and easily readable it give a great opportunity for many to get introduced with philosophy easier this way。

Liam Kilroy ，

Despite Grayling’s occasional anti-theistic rants detracting from the flow， it is overall quite a good survey。

Tajei ，

"The main reason that so little attention is paid to Continental philosophy by Analytic philosophers has to be frankly acknowledged。 It is that the latter are impatient with （at best; at worst， contemptuous of） — and here I will illustrate the point — what they see as the ab/uses and con/fusions of language， which， in its unexplained neologising， its deliberate ambiguity and its overloading， attenuating or deflating of meanings （the use of the virgule is a common device， as above; a form of 'pha "The main reason that so little attention is paid to Continental philosophy by Analytic philosophers has to be frankly acknowledged。 It is that the latter are impatient with （at best; at worst， contemptuous of） — and here I will illustrate the point — what they see as the ab/uses and con/fusions of language， which， in its unexplained neologising， its deliberate ambiguity and its overloading， attenuating or deflating of meanings （the use of the virgule is a common device， as above; a form of 'phallus/y'？） seems impressionistic and slippery， the unclarity a mask for unclarity of thought， or worse， a pretence of profundity。" 。。。more

Donna Karno ，

This is a book that is never finished

James ，

A great one volume book on the history of philosophy。 The significant ideas of each major philosopher are discussed along with a brief history。 In some instances schools of thought are investigated。 I found each section interesting and the ideas well explained with one exception， the first section in Analytic philosophy。 I’m not sure if this is Grayling’s expertise but he describes the ideas in this section in more detail than any other and frankly I found it hard to be excited about the logic o A great one volume book on the history of philosophy。 The significant ideas of each major philosopher are discussed along with a brief history。 In some instances schools of thought are investigated。 I found each section interesting and the ideas well explained with one exception， the first section in Analytic philosophy。 I’m not sure if this is Grayling’s expertise but he describes the ideas in this section in more detail than any other and frankly I found it hard to be excited about the logic of language。 It’s as if the big questions of life were forgotten and minor questions about the accuracy of language replaced them。 Don’t let this dissuade you from reading the book though。 It’s only one subsection and the rest is priceless。 。。。more

Jeremy Gonzales ，

See this review:https://www。goodreads。com/review/show。。。 See this review:https://www。goodreads。com/review/show。。。 。。。more

Mat ，

TelRev4

Reference

google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=The History of Philosophy

hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=The History of Philosophy&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft

The British Library https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,The History of Philosophy&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&offset=0