system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Do articles or books ever become dated in philosophy?

This is more a question for people who have gone to graduate school or are otherwise involved in academic philosophy at a high level. 

In the sciences, articles that were written a certain length of time ago are considered "dated" and no longer valid, although they may be interesting for historical reasons. My question is whether this ever happens in philosophy.

My impression is that it doesn't, because philosophers often appeal to arguments from philosophers who wrote hundreds or even thousands of years ago. Still, maybe academics treat older works differently in some way.

(To be clear, I am not casting aspersions on philosophy by comparing it with science. I love philosophy, I am majoring in philosophy, and in some ways I consider it superior to science.)
gpt
The vast majority of articles and books are dated. If you cite John Bramhall or whoever without a *really* good reason, people are going to look at you weird. It's only a tiny (*incredibly* minuscule) handful of philosophers earlier than, say, 50 years ago whom we still regularly cite.

Even then, the older the philosopher is, the less likely it is that someone cites them to appeal to their argument and the more likely it is that someone cites them to locate the first appearance of a type of argument. 

For instance, plenty of people cite Plato or Aristotle, but it's much rarer that they cite them in terms of endorsing an argument. Usually it's just a matter of explaining the genesis of an idea to help the reader what you are saying, not citing an authority to back up your own argument.

If you have examples of people citing older articles as good arguments and not just as historical footnotes, and you think this happens more than in, say, math, you're welcome to post the examples.