THis book has been immensely helpful in one major way: It speaks philosophy in a language I could understand. Philosophy can be difficult with its own terminology, yet this book makes it so easy to understand the concepts and factions.

When I was browsing on Amazon, I was surprised to see that this book (In Europe it is called 'The Pimlico History of Western Philosophy, edited by Richard H. Popkin and effectively written by -indeed- a 'small army of connaisseurs') had an average rating of 4.5 stars. To me the largest part of the book is utterly unreadable. Many sections seem like an endless row of quotations connected by lines of interpretative thought from each expert. No doubt that these people are experts in their field, but their capacity to transmit the basic ideas as intended by the philosophers discussed (or at least the interpretations of those ideas), is very poor. Nor do the discussions stimulate philosophical thought in the reader himself. Probably this might not be the purpose of this book, but in my personal opinion every history of philosophy should encourage the interested layman to contemplate on the big questions concerning metaphysics, ontology, epistemology and ethics. Or as Storig formulates it very well in his excellent 'Kleine Weltgeschichte der Philospie':

What can we do? What should we do? What may we believe?

If you are looking for the answers to these questions, do not read this book. The remark Popkin makes in the introduction of this book concerning 'History of Western Philosophy' by Bertrand Russell is really cheap: "Russell wrote his book hastily out of financial desperation while jobless in N.Y.C. at the beginning of WW II. Since Russell was a scholar of very few topics he covered, and uninterested or hostile to others, his opus is most engaging as Russelliana but hardly as history of philosophy". And further: "This work (Popkin's) is not intended to compete with this classic (Russell's)". Well, I read both and the conclusion is easily made. Pimlico doesn't come even close to Russell's. Indeed Bertrand Russell treats the history of philosophy in a very personal style and frankly ventilates his opinion on the great minds of western philosophy. But he does this in such a way, that it is still possible to get a clear picture of the original ideas unbiased by Russell's opinions. Also Russell's book does stimulate the educated reader to think and judge for himself. And, frankly, - but this is my personal opinion - although I do not agree with Russell's judgement in a number of cases, his statement that the philosophic ideas of some great men like Berkeley - who denied the existence of matter; material objects exist only through being perceived - are to be classified as insanity, despite the sometimes ingenuous arguments Berkeley made to support this view.

I would like to spare one section from Pimlico's from my harsh criticism. That is the one written by Avrum Stroll on 'Twentieth Century Analytic Philosphy'. The eleven chapters he wrote give a very accessible introduction to this difficult subject, although I feel he could have spent more words on the Tractatus in the Wittgenstein chapter. Stroll's contribution prevents the rating from dropping to one star.