Interesting (critical) reflection on my rules thus far

I think Eric's comments help to get at the distinctions between what historians of philosophy do and what other historians (like those of medicine/science like myself) do that pop up fairly regularly from HOP people of my acquaintance. I especially like the symmetry principle analogy. Of course it is true that in all types of history anachronistic approaches sometimes provide something useful, but it perhaps more true (or the most true) in the history of philosophy. The historian of science/medicine for example may seek to understand the thoughts of the subject under study in their own context in part because they would be leery of assigning them value in a modern context, but this is less so for philosophers (I think).

what's your response to his point about malbranche being a possible missing conceptual link (i think a BBC4 IOT discusses this link too)

Hello, I am currently working on an essay to explain the time and space of human civilization. I will like to share my ideas with you. Thank you.