"This is quite a conservative history of philosophy. As such I would probably recommend Russell’s work over this one � but this has the advantage of being shorter, and that’s quite an advantage. There are main chapters on a series of ‘key� philosophers � Plato, Aristotle, Bacon, Spinoza, Voltaire, Kant, Schopenhauer, Spencer, Nietzsche � and some shorter chapters on Bergson, Croce, Russell, Santayana, James and Dewey. Along the way he also mentions Comte, Hegel, Locke, Rousseau and Hume. Of the main chapters, about fifty pages are dedicated to the key philosophers I've listed. This is interesting as it generally starts with their ‘life� and then moves onto their ‘ideas� and ends with a criticism � although, often these are rather glowing. There are a few nice jokes along the way � my favourite being about Santayana (someone I knew virtually nothing of before reading this) and his version of atheistic Catholicism (for want of a better term) that he would like to see Europe remain Catholic long after it had given up Christianity � and a wit who said, “God doesn’t exist and Mary is His mother�.

One of the underlying themes here is that Plato was right that the best form of society is an aristocracy. We need to be ruled by the best people. Well, this is hardly contentious in one sense � better to be ruled by the best of people than the worst � but how we are to go about choosing these best of people is where the problems tend to arise. If at all possible I think I would rather pass on the Nietzschean artist/war-lord/herd’s man/superman.

The interesting thing about this book is that he feels epistemology (the theory of how we know stuff) has troubled philosophy for far too long and that he felt the time was fast approaching when philosophy would get over epistemology and go back to more worthwhile questions � particularly to do with how to live a good life � ethics.

His explanations are always clear and generally also insightful. He essentially weaves his way through his explanations using the philosopher’s own words and drawing together their thinking in ways that clarify what they had to say � this is particularly evident with Nietzsche, who does tend to be a bit all over the place.

Still, as I said, this is a very conservative collection. Hegel gets seven pages and his lack of influence on James is highlighted, but not his very strong influence on Dewey. Dewey gets half the mention of James who gets about half the mention of Santayana, in virtually inverse relation to any current valuation of their worth, I would suspect. I also found it interesting that some philosophers were even selected (not sure I would have picked Voltaire in my top ten philosophers for an extended discussion). Books that have extensive chapters on Schopenhauer and Nietzsche (like The Consolations of Philosophy say) do tend to be more conservative � and, to be honest, I did find myself getting a bit bored hearing their views rehearsed yet again. I felt he was kinder to both of these philosophers than he was to Kant � but I also think Kant’s contribution to philosophy so greatly outweighs either of their's that this would have to be seen as an odd valuation to say the least.

I am going to have to spend some time reading Spinoza, but I’ve no idea just when I’ll get time to read him the requisite two to three times. Still, he does sound particularly interesting and I have been meaning to read his Ethics for years � I even have it on my bookshelf waiting, always waiting� It's a good thing Spinoza is so patient.

This wasn’t a terrible overview of the history of Philosophy � but I guess it could more accurately have been called, “Some of My Favourite Philosophers� � if you know what I mean.
"

"Not an easy book. Still the chapters on the biological and the cultural matrix of inquiry are very insightful, and provide a good theoretical framework for a naturalistic epistemology that is humanistic, scientific and NON-REDUCTIVE."