It was hard not to read it and think “this guy is analyzing cleverness? Like this?” It’s hard to read it and not feel the author themself wasn’t peacocking their cleverness. And I’m not entirely fond of the attempt at reinforcing a point this abstract trying to use quotes or excerpts from sources. It’s an idea; it doesn’t need evidence. It’s just meant to evoke thought. I’m ok with that and don’t need you to try to prove it by something Kierkegaard said.
I think the piece does resound a bit if you can clean off the gunky verbal tripe and look at what they’re trying to say. There’s a definite problem regarding people trying to be clever. I’m just not convinced that’s the source of the problem. Just a symptom.
> It’s an idea; it doesn’t need evidence. It’s just meant to evoke thought. I’m ok with that and don’t need you to try to prove it by something Kierkegaard said.
The point of citing Kierkegaard is to make use of the insights of others to try to explain something and to shed light on it. What the author is examining starts as a vague, confused, and murky impression that requires refinement, analysis, and effort to get to the essence of the thing. Clarity is not a given. Do you presume to know all there can be said about a thing? If not, then looking at what others have said is an opportunity to grow in wisdom and break out of the provincialism of one's own limited perspective, if only by the very act of wrestling with their material. I thank the wise who came before me for showing me the way and enriching my understanding of reality.
The creation of an idea is not something that requires prior art. The addition of prior art to an idea falsely equivocates it to evidence of the idea’s merit. However I believe an idea has merit when it has resonance, period.
I think the piece does resound a bit if you can clean off the gunky verbal tripe and look at what they’re trying to say. There’s a definite problem regarding people trying to be clever. I’m just not convinced that’s the source of the problem. Just a symptom.