"Well thats a philosophical stance you can choose. You may opt for this stance or not, but it is not necessarily the natural view of the role of "history of philosophy"
Not true at all. If you've studied music to a great degree, philosophy, psychology or basically anything else that falls into this kind of category you'll soon find out that you inevitably are forced to learn the history.
Forced? Probably a non acurate concept. You don't need more history to study aristotelian logics than you need in astronomy.
"The focus of philosphical investigation will also be greatly determined by historical setting but this is almost purely of interest of the historicans. Yes we need to understand the historical context to understand why e.g. this specific stance was introduced instead of another one. But this is historical investigation and undoubtly of great interest for the historians...The philosophers are concerned with the "eternal ideas". The supposed stances are either valid or not valid completly independant of history"
Wrong, and I can't stress enough the extent to which. First of all, most philosophers of the twentieth century on (or, hell, the 19th on) would be disgusted if you told them they were concerned with "eternal ideas". There are no "eternal ideas" in modern philosophy. That's an admitted fact. And as for the stances being completely independant of history? Hell no. Philosophy students are being taught to understand the concepts of philosophy. You cannot understand the concepts of philosophers to the full extent until you understand the times they were bred in.
This is an unaccaptable prejudice that I have listened many times before. First, let us stablish what world is and what time is and then (not before) we can talk about history. It's impossible understand history without some ontological precepts beacuse it suposes that "existence", "universe" or "time" are out there. What do you mean when said that there are not eternal ideas in the modern philosophy? What about hegelian idealism? What about transcendental idealism in Kant?
Like I said before, you will never get through a music course without learning about Chopin's Poland or Mozart's Austria.
Music starts from a matemathical bases. If you want to apreciate formal objectes of any art, you don't need its historical context.
"That is why e.g. Platon, Socrates etc. are often mentioned because their thought are still relevant."
No. They are still discussed because they were the founders of philosophy and the basis of rational thought.
Yes, my God! Aristotle or Plato are classic philosophers beause the problems they investigated seems as interesting now as before.
"The understanding of how these theories came to be that is what Tyler express, are indeed interesting but for the historians."
Wrong. Philosophy in University is the study of philosophy, the study of knowledge and the persuit of it. Like I've said before, you cannot understand the product until you understand the production.
Nope. The logic value of a sentence (E=mc^2) doesn't depends of the making off.
"What tyles points at is not within the field of philosphy but histoty"
Wrong. And I can get numerous statements from Professors if you'd like.
'"The last comment was intended those that would subscribe "historicism" as philosophical stance. Tyler's reply seem to indicate such a thought."
Wrong. I simply wish to understand the assembly before I state I understand the product.
"To get my point: concider the offence to Descartes if his works was only to be understood in a historical frame."
Where in fuck did you see me say that it was "only to be understood" in historical frame?
I just understood the same way, help me understand you.
"What would he had said if told him his works was dependant on historical context?"
Historicism, in philosophy, it's a hardly reductive tendence I have never understand at all. The historical context can help you to understand an autor, agree; but a) Philosophy is not only waht philosophers said, b) What philosophers said is significant by its internal logics not by its historical impact, c) May be there's not history at all... but I'm sure there is any idea in my conscience (Descartes), d) In philosophy and sience, we must to separate the arguemental context and the historical context (Richenback), and I state that the philosophically important is the first, e) "Every statement needs its historical context to be justified" (I don't know if anybody here thinks that way) needs, if right, its historical context to be true... so it can result true today and false tomorrow. If this sentence wants to itself become a serious true, it must become a non historical sentence; but then we would obtain A and no A; and f) When Sartre, using an "ethiolate use of the lenguage" (Austin) by my point of view, said that the essence is posterior to the existence, they only spoke about human being.