The philosophers stated here were brilliant minds, no doubt about it. The scientific revolution created a new way of thinking about and carrying out solutions to problems that was attempted(poorly) by Descartes and their ilk. It's takes a while for good thinking to develop when one starts from a completely new framework. This starts the era when something substantial is said outside the school of classical greek thought that isn't completely idiotic.



The first empricist is Locke, who is really quite mind numbingly dull to read, but very important in how the empricists after him build off of(and subsequently demolish much of) what he said. His philosophy, even if not very agreeable, is straightforward and quite logically fleshed out.



Berkeley, in contrast, was a joy to read. The funny part about him is that he wanted to save philosophy from abstract notions that have no application to real life, then expounds a philosophy that denies the meterial world in its entirety! It must be said that his critique was phenomenal, and rightly states many of the things taken for granted such as substance have no empiricial basis, as well as rightfully stating objects have no qualities in themselves, but only what we perceive as qualities, thereby refuting much of Aristotle.



Hume goes even further than Berkeley in refuting spiritual substance, doubting cause and effect, in essence doubting everything. He does so with lucidity and style that makes for another enjoyable section. His views on morality is his main weakness, and essentially boils down to Pain=Bad, Happiness=Good.



There were a couple others also, but after those three guys I can't remember anything substantial they said. Reading this History was akin to watching a wrecking crew destroy an entire village, laughing gleefully as they do it. The problem is they left next to nothing to rebuild it with. For that we have to wait for Kant.