Can the dilemma of history and philosophy be escaped? Must we choose to be either historians or philosophers, and must a work be history or philosophy, but not both? I believe that the dilemma can be escaped and that a work may be the better for being both, but keeping scrupulously clear when we are doing one and when the other. We can conceive of two tasks, "the first is mainly historical, while the second is mainly philosophical." the first sort of question, of influence, development and the causes of ideas, can be answered only from historical knowledge of events. The second approach is a philosophic approach. We are discovering, without regard to dates and influences, the great types of possible philosophies. Our study here is how the system itself is articulated, and we seek to understand how "we shall ourselves acquire knowledge of important philosophical truths." The contrast then between a historical approach and a philosophic approach is that between a causal explanation of how a philosophy comes to be and an enquiry into a philosophy's meaning and truth.