What I like about Rawls' methodology in the history of philosophy...

A propos my discussion with Mohan about using the history of philosophy as philosophizing through others:

"I always took it for granted that the writers we were studying were much smarter than I was. If they were not, why was I wasting my time and the students‘ time by studying them? If I saw a mistake in their arguments, I suppose those writers saw it too and must have dealt with it. But where? I looked for their way out." (Rawls 2000, xvi)

A few remarks:

1. By contrast to his editors, I take it that Rawls is here not just reflecting his pedagogical views, but also his own interest in history of philosophy (he is "studying" the folks he teaches, too).
2. Given scarcity (of temporal resources), Rawls is not an egalitarian about about the history of philosophy. He treats the historical figures he is willing to teach as intellectual masters (notice that "always") in a certain sense. (He makes it precise by using 'reverence' a bit below--not in the sense to be slavishly followed, of course.) This doesn't mean that we should ignore the lesser lights, of course, but our primary pedagogical focus is on the peaks of thought.
3. One's interest in the past is not merely exegetical, but critically evaluative.
4. Now the part I find most exciting about Rawls is that the most exciting part of inquiry starts after one has found such a "mistake."