There is a difference between something being incomplete, and being misleading. I think this would be a very bad starting point for the history of philosophy, u

There is a difference between something being incomplete, and being misleading. I think this would be a very bad starting point for the history of philosophy, unless you don't know any of the canon to begin with. It is entirely ahistorical, for the reasons I stated (point 2 and 3). But yes, it can serve some pedagogical purposes, I'm sure.