I’ll admit, the history of philosophy is one of my favorite genres, having read the works of Bertrand Russell, Will Durant, Anthony Kenny, Bryan Magee, Nigel Warburton, and others. Each has its pros and cons, so it’s hard to rank them, but if I had to, Russell’s The History of Western Philosophy and Magee’s Confessions of a Philosopher would top the list. (A Little History of Philosophy by Nigel Warburton would come in a close third, for those looking for a quicker read.)
But now, if I had to recommend one book to someone interested in the subject, it would be A. C. Grayling’s latest, The History of Philosophy, and here’s why.
For a single-volume work, this book has the most extensive coverage, not only because of its higher page count, but also because it packs the most content into each page. Grayling states in the introduction that his goal is to write about each philosopher as clearly and concisely as possible without sacrificing the complexity and subtlety of their thinking, which he masterfully achieves.
Whereas Russell’s history only covers up to John Dewey, Grayling takes the reader through the entire twentieth century up to Kripke, and even manages to squeeze in a section on Indian, Chinese, Arabic-Persian, and African philosophy, in addition to an appendix on logic, all in roughly the same number of pages.
How does he do this? Other than by writing clearly and concisely, unlike Russell, who spends 190 pages on Catholic philosophy, Grayling covers Medieval and Renaissance philosophy in 58 pages. Grayling’s principle of selection is more focused, as he makes the valid point that theology is not philosophy and that it requires its own history, much like science. As Grayling wrote, “if the starting point for reflection is the acceptance of religious doctrine, then the reflection that follows is theology, or theodicy, or exegesis, or casuistry, or apologetics, or hermeneutics, but it is not philosophy.” This allows him to dedicate more space to modern and contemporary philosophy.
This is not to say that he ignores Medieval philosophy, just that he covers it in a rather brilliant way. Rather than focusing on the philosophical debates regarding imaginary entities (e.g., the nature of the holy trinity), he simply comments on the legitimate philosophical issues that “arise from or impinge upon” theological thought, i.e., the philosophical problems of time, free will, ethics, etc.
In addition to more focused content, you might think that Grayling would have the edge on Russell for no other reason than the fact that his history was published 74 years after Russell’s, incorporating the latest research and progress in philosophy over the last three quarters of a century. But it’s not only for this reason.
Russell’s account has been legitimately criticized for lacking objectivity and for providing inadequate or misleading coverage of several philosophers. Grayling’s history is an improvement in this regard, as it provides both a more objective and deeper account of each philosopher. Not that Grayling will escape the criticism of bias; for as Russell said, “a man without bias cannot write interesting history — if, indeed, such a man exists."
Grayling is not such a man, but this is a good thing. He does a commendable job of walking the fine line between the objective presentation of each philosopher’s ideas and the analysis and commentary that by definition must be biased toward a particular perspective. (A completely objective history of philosophy without commentary would be nothing other than a series of dull Wikipedia entries.) That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if Grayling is criticized for not hiding his atheism and contempt for religion, but, as he accurately noted, religion is most definitely not philosophy, for several reasons he makes perfectly clear.
Last, I can confidently say that, out of the many works on popular philosophy I’ve read, Grayling provides the clearest accounts of the even the most difficult philosophers (Kant, Hegel, Heidegger). I came away from this book with a sense of greater understanding of the most challenging ideas thanks to what I’m sure was a tremendous amount of work that Grayling put in to make the ideas come to life for a non-philosopher (this is a majorly underrated skill).
Grayling is simply a masterful writer, providing a clear, concise, and entertaining narrative of the deepest and most profound thinking in the history of our species, updated for the twenty-first century (a time in which we need philosophy more than ever). While I wouldn’t say that Grayling’s history replaces Russell’s (Russell is not replaceable), if you decide to read only one book about the history of philosophy, make it this one.
The History of Philosophy
4.5 | 778 ratings
Price: 25.59
Last update: 02-25-2025
About this item
Top reviews from the United States
Ryan BoissonneaultThe best single-voulme history of philosophy since Russell
JoeExcellent Resource
B. R.Well-written, but...
B. R.
Well-written, but...
Reviewed in the United States on August 25, 2020
As others have said, this is a close contender for the best single volume history of philosophy. I felt that it succeeded in many areas except for two points.
Successes:
1. Grayling’s history is one of the best written of the various histories of philosophy that I’ve read - he has an expansive vocabulary, an engaging, active style and interesting asides and anecdotes without dipping into story-telling. The book is more readable than Kenny’s and Evans’ histories while avoiding strong opinions as in Russell’s and Durant’s histories. (Note that Russell’s is at times inaccurate).
2. The book seriously attempts to cover all philosophy, not ”Western philosophy” but “Philosophy”. The coverage of non-western philosophy in the last section was a welcome and enjoyable read, though its entirely forgivable brevity and lack of depth makes me question whether a dedicated single-volume history of “Eastern” philosophy wouldn’t have been more appropriate. Though the book’s title hints at hubris, Grayling gets close enough to a full and meaningful overview of “Philosophy” without melting his wings.
Failures
1. While Grayling deftly explains the individuals and schools of philosophy, he does not center these around the central questions through history. For each era he relates how various philosophers riffed off their predecessors and related or not to their contemporaries and handed ideas on to their successors, I felt that he forgot the trunk for the branches. There is little ”bringing it back” to the big questions. I found myself struggling to understand why exactly the complex explanation of some philosophers or schools of thought even mattered. Maybe I wanted more philosophy than history. In my opinion, there is a much better discussion of “relevance” in Anthony Kenny’s somewhat larger history.
2. The author, himself a well-known philosopher, stands in the Analytic tradition which provides a useful vantage point on the history of philosophy. However while the book seems to be written for the amateur, the chapter on Analytic philosophy felt dense and difficult. I’ve read numerous philosophical works and historical accounts that were difficult yet rewarding endeavors. After I slogged through the chapter on Analytic philosophy, I felt more confused in some respects than when I started. While I understand that this is Dr. Grayling’s “homeland”, perhaps he could have slowed down his tour a bit for the average reader.
The lack of keeping the fundamental questions in plain view and the torturous chapter on Analytic philosophy, dropped it one-star for me.
Nota Bene: The author makes his reasons for exclusion of theistic philosophy very clear. (Probably best expressed on pp 555-556.) Though I disagree with his premises, he states them upfront and recognizes that some will disagree. I can’t fault him for representing his beliefs. That said, I find his complete and unapologetic omission of Kierkegaard staggering. Even more so, some might argue, is his very brief and dismissive treatment of Aquinas. For an excellent history of philosophy which includes theistic philosophy (though of smaller scope and just slightly less engaging of a read), consider C. Stephen Evans’ history.