The best and most instructive way to learn about philosophy is by examining the history of the field. It is here that we come to see how its particulars are identified and addressed by some of humankind's sharpest intellects. Philosophy began hundreds of years BCE and by now has grown to scope and scale beyond acceptability by any single mind. Sampling of some of the philosophical episodes and issues can provide some insights into the nature of the field. And it is with this goal in view—clarifying the detail of some key philosophical issues—that these studies are being put into print. These are published with a hope that it is better to look at some of the steps—and mis-steps—that some of the eminent philosophers of the modern era have taken in order to deal with basic issues. It is thus the aim of these forays into philosophical history to illustrate how contemporary perspectives, methods, and instruments of analysis can clarify some of the key philosophical teachings both by highlighting the difficulties they encounter and by providing instructive means for addressing them.

Over and above their common concern—for key issues in modern (post-Cartesian) philosophy what links all of these logically diverse chapters together—is what might be called “the methodology of the road not taken.” In each instance of philosophical problem-solving with which we will have to be concerned, there are alternatives for the course adopted by the protagonist that he (not always wisely) did not take—but always for reasons that greatly clarify our understanding of his position.

Historians of philosophy are generally reporters: they endeavor to present the ideas of their protagonists and to give us a picture of what and how they think. The three Cs—criticism, cavil, and correction—they leave to those protagonists themselves. The present attempt, by contrast, takes a somewhat different line. Both historians and reporters try to elucidate some of the core conceptions of their subjects but suggest how certain problems and difficulties that arise in this context can be overcome. In effect, the aim is to realize something of a critical dialogue with some major philosophers in an endeavor to address—and ideally overcome—difficulties in their positions.