| Name | Philosopher |
| Anderson | Thales |
| Baskar | Anaximander |
| Chen | Anaximenes |
| Chhatiawala | Pythagoras |
| Dempsey | Pherecydes of Syros |
| Gaylin | Xenophanes |
| Holmes | Heraclitus |
| Kohley | Parminedes |
| Marcus | Anaxagoras |
| Martin | Empedolces |
| Mercier | Protagoras |
| Mithani | Philolaus |
| Morrison | Leucippus & Democritus * |
| Olivier | Plato |
| Pederson | Aristotle |
| Saccucci | Epicurus |
| Smith | Zeno of Citium |
* These two are often treated as one; get to their atomistic ideas and don't worry about which one deserves the credit.
The book is more concerned with the piety of the individuals and how this worked for them in their society, whereas we are more concerned with the details of their physical world models. So: dig beyond what is in the book. For a few philosophers, only a little is known. For some (esp. Plato and Aristotle) too much is known for our purposes. Concentrate on the essentials! - there won't be time to discuss all of Plato (there are entire courses devoted to that).
The book has some glaring omissions. Socrates is discussed in the prefatory material, but apparently does not merit his own chapter. When it comes to physical cosmology, important omissions include Eratosthenes, Zeno of Elea, Aristarchus of Samos, and Hipparchos. Though not known for his thoughts on physical cosmology, the search of Diogenes for an honest man is good to keep in mind when discussing cosmology.