I'm kind of busy at the moment, so I'm gonna make this to the point. " It's impossible understand history without some ontological precepts beacuse it suposes that "existence", "universe" or "time" are out there" This is a debate for another thread altogether, but I would disagree with that (if I'm understanding you correctly). Existence before essence, if you get my drift, and an ontological discussion is about essence. "What do you mean when said that there are not eternal ideas in the modern philosophy?" I mean there have been few acknowledged philosophers who have subscribed to the idea of objective, eternal or universal "truths". Most have accepted a basic subjectivity and then worked off of language (note: "modern" meaning twentieth century. Or, better yet, Nietzche on - so, postmodern) "Aristotle or Plato are classic philosophers beause the problems they investigated seems as interesting now as before." Subjective arguement. I find Aristotle a bore and Plato repetitive. They're studied because they founded - this does not mean their arguements are still relevant. We discuss early Greek science but we still don't consider the "four elements" to be relevant. " just understood the same way, help me understand you." Keep readin'! Like I said, I htink we miscommunicated. "The historical context can help you to understand an autor, agree" Historical context helps you understand an author. Understanding an author helps you understand his logic. Understanding his logic helps you both find fault and good in his arguements. Thus, helping philosophy. "b) What philosophers said is significant by its internal logics not by its historical impact" Wrong, on language. It is "significant" largely through it's historical impact. Would you say Marx is significant because he wrote some funky ideas or because it changed the shape of the world? ") 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" Agreed. "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" I'll check into that, but I don't believe so. Rest of you - I got work to do, I'll be back in a minute.