In the above mentioned article on page 376, in the third paragraph, after the sentence ‘These prejudices are not simply the inevitable consequence of our imperfect knowledge, but rather are akin to, in contemporary terms, implicit biases.’, the author would like to add the following footnote: Amy Schmitter, in her “Cartesian Prejudice and Critique of Gender in Poulain de la Barre,” presented at the Pacific APA in March 2016, helpfully aligns Poullain's notion of prejudice with implicit bias. The responsibility of all errors and omissions rests with the author.

We sincerely regret this omission from the original text and any problems that have resulted for the authors and readers.

I reflect critically on the early modern philosophical canon in light of the entrenchment and homogeneity of the lineup of seven core figures: Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and Kant. After distinguishing three elements of a philosophical canon—a causal story, a set of core philosophical questions, and a set of distinctively philosophical works—I argue that recent efforts contextualizing the history of philosophy within the history of science subtly shift the central philosophical questions and allow for a greater range of figures to be philosophically central. However, the history of science is but one context in which to situate philosophical works. Looking at the historical context of seventeenth-century philosophy of mind, one that weaves together questions of consciousness, rationality, and education, does more than shift the central questions—it brings new ones to light. It also shows that a range of genres can be properly philosophical and seamlessly diversifies the central philosophers of the period.