Plato

In general, important civilizations start with a rigid and superstitious system, gradually relaxed, and leading, at a certain stage, to a period of brilliant genius, while the good of the old tradition remains and the inherent evil in its dissolution has not yet developed. But as the evil unfolds, it leads to anarchy, thence, inevitably, to a new tyranny, producing a new synthesis secured by a new system of dogma. The doctrine of liberalism is an attempt to escape from this endless oscillation. The essence of liberalism is an attempt to secure a social order not based on irrational dogma, and insuring stability without involving more restraints than are necessary for the preservation of the community. Whether this attempt can succeed only the future can determine.

Bertrand Russell, A History of Western of Western Philosophy (xxiii)

As Russell draws his introduction to A History of Western Philosophy (HWP) to a close, his underlying intention becomes clear—in short, he seeks to be one of those who will be, by the judgment of those from some future time, one who successfully defended liberalism against the dual threats of “irrational dogma” and superstition on the one hand and “anarchy” on the other. If done well, philosophy will foster “a way of life” (24) that is able to escape from the “endless oscillation” between dogma and anarchy, but even the best of philosophers can pave the way to either dogma or anarchy. Descartes, for instance, set forth a philosophical approach that challenged the authority of Aristotle, an authority that had approached the status of a dogma by the late Middle Ages—he was, after all, simply referred to as the Philosopher—and turned instead to the authority of one’s own thoughts. It is for this reason that “Modern philosophy,” Russell argues, “begins with Descartes, whose fundamental certainty is the existence of himself and his thoughts, from which the external world is to be inferred” (xxi). Yet Descartes’ very challenge to the dogmatism deriving from Aristotle led in turn to the subjectivism of modern philosophy, whereby “everything is only an emanation of the ego,” and with this “subjectivism in philosophy, anarchism in politics goes hand in hand” (ibid.). It was in this context that liberalism emerged, but liberalism is not assured of continuing. As Russell well knew, given that he wrote A History of Western Philosophy during WWII (1940-3), the threats to liberalism were very real, and hence as he wrote this book there was a very real sense of urgency to Russell’s project. In short, Russell’s history of philosophy is a philosophical defense of liberalism.