PeterKinnon wrote: Mostly because I have come to the realization that the cogitations of early philosophers have little other than basic matrices of reason to offer. Not because of any want of intellect on their part but, rather, because of the gross lack of information about the workings of our world that was then available. The IT acronym GIGO: Garbage in - garbage out expresses this succinctly.
I see the history of philosophy as important since we can learn why we use the conceptual framework we do, how philosophers have dealt with certain issues, and also to learn how not to treat certain philosophical problems. As they say, if you do not know history, you are doomed to repeat it. In a way, reading the history of philosophy is like a form of contraception: it helps prevent giving bith to ideas that have been bastardized by other men. But there might be a 'hole' in my argument here.
It is true that in science it is not always worthwhile to read the history, but philosophy isn't science, nor should it try to be. Philosophy is the analysis of the concepts we take for granted, and the honest analysis of those concepts in order to arrive at the truth of the matter at hand. Science does have a role, sure, but philosophy ought not to be reduced to science. Philosophy is concerned with argumentation, logic, and a faithful description of human experience. If anything, science and philosophy (as a historically-driven discipline) have much to learn from each other.