Abstract

In this book Hintikka brings together some of his most important historical studies. While all the papers have appeared earlier, he has expanded or revised several of these with the result that they exemplify common themes. However, the themes themselves find unity in the central aim of the book. Instead of doing analytical and critical studies of some issues in the history of epistemology, Hintikka is engaged in investigating historical perspectives in epistemology. He contends that to understand a thinker properly "it is vital to know the conceptual landscape in which moving". It is only through a thorough understanding of the "conceptual topography" of a philosopher’s "intellectual landscape" that one can have a proper grasp of what the philosopher says. Once these assumptions are delineated, one can see the large scale differences between Plato and Frege, for example. An important feature of Hintikka’s approach is the rejection of what he calls "the fallacy of monolithic concepts". This is the assumption that a philosopher’s concepts exhibit solid uniformity and one harmonious pattern throughout. Rather, a careful analysis of a philosopher’s intellectual terrain reveals several different features running together in it. No uniform interpretation is possible! Thus, Hintikka attempts a partial but revealing interpretation of the position being studied. As he approaches the thought of each philosopher, he attempts to analyze and clarify one or more important features of the conceptual landscape which gives shape and point to the philosopher’s work. Who does Hintikka investigate in this book?