There are already quite a few histories of philosophy, and it is not my intention to merely add one to them.My purpose is to show that philosophy is an integral part of social and political life: it is not an isolated reflection of eminent individuals, but a product of social characters in which systems have prevailed and cause.This purpose requires us to tell more about history in general than historians of philosophy usually do.I also find this especially necessary for periods that are not necessarily familiar to the general reader.The great age of scholasticism was a product of the reforms of the eleventh century, which in turn were a reaction to the decadence of the preceding period.It is difficult to understand the intellectual atmosphere of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries without some knowledge of the centuries between the fall of Rome and the rise of the medieval clergy.In dealing with this period, as with others, it is my aim merely to furnish—with regard to the epochs in which philosophers were made, and for those epochs in which they were formed— I think it is the general history which needs to be told if the philosopher is to be understood sympathetically.

One of the consequences of this view is that it often does not give a philosopher the status that the excellence of his philosophy deserves.For my part, for example, I consider Spinoza to be a greater philosopher than Locke, but his influence is much less; and I therefore deal with him much more briefly than with Locke.There are some men—such as Rousseau and Byron—who were not philosophers at all in the academic sense, but who have so profoundly influenced the temperament of philosophical thought that it is impossible to understand the meaning of philosophy if we ignore them. develop.In this respect even pure men of action are sometimes of great importance;

Few philosophers have had as much influence on philosophy as Alexander the Great, Charlemagne or Napoleon.Lycurgus, if he existed, would be an even more striking example. Since the period of time to be covered is so broad, there must be a drastic selection principle.Having read some standard histories of philosophy, I have come to the conclusion that an overly brief account will give the reader nothing of value; so I have left those characters (except very few exceptions) are omitted entirely.Of the characters I discuss, I mention only what seems to have something to do with their anger and their social background; sometimes I even record details which are in themselves insignificant, as long as I think they are Suffice it to say about a man or his time.

Finally, I should say a few words of defense to the specialists who deal with any part of my vast subject.My knowledge of any one philosopher is obviously in no way comparable to that of a less extensive study.I have no doubt that many people know more than I do about any of the philosophers I have mentioned—with the exception of Leibniz.If, however, this were a sufficient reason for keeping silent, it would turn out that no one could say anything beyond a narrow fragment of history.The influence of Sparta on Rousseau, Plato on Christian philosophy up to the thirteenth century, Nestorius on the Arabs and thus on Aquinas, St. Ambrose from the rise of the Lombard cities to the present day. Ross's influence on liberal political philosophy are subjects that can be dealt with only in a comprehensive historical work.For these reasons, I request the forgiveness of readers who find my knowledge of some parts of my subject to be deficient, which my knowledge would be more adequate if I had not had to remember "Time flies."

This book is indebted to Dr. Albert C. Barnes, and the original manuscript was written for, and partly taught, the Barnes Foundation Lectures at the University of Pennsylvania. As in most of my work for the last thirteen years, my wife, Bartherecia Russell, has greatly assisted me in research and in many other ways.