> If philosophy is useful (which it may not be), then studying the history of philosophy is useful.
I'm not sure this follows, though nor can I think of any counterexamples where it is uncontroversially absolutely useless to study the history of a useful subject. But I think that one can, e.g., be a successful professional mathematician without being much interested in the history of mathematics.
I'm not sure this follows, though nor can I think of any counterexamples where it is uncontroversially absolutely useless to study the history of a useful subject. But I think that one can, e.g., be a successful professional mathematician without being much interested in the history of mathematics.