I argue that studying the history of philosophy is philosophically unhelpful
I don&#x27;t think it is completely useless, but I hate to build any argument in classical philosophy. No, I do not want to start my argument with Aristoteles and follow the whole chain until I can make a case at some point. Aristoteles is a giant that certainly founded a lot of scientific fields, but the basis of an argument is not improved with a whole theoretical foundation that is artificially attached to the point.<p>I believe the affliction is that because your philosophical case needs to be argued, it is expected to have a foundation in some philosophical root. With allegedly gives it more weight than just another thought.<p>It is sensible to read other philosophers I guess, but I think people should be encouraged to argue on their own.