I feel like the prioritization of unique insights is kind of glory hound behavior and it's better to just be well-reasoned even if it "just" leads you to, in part, supporting positions that people have had for 200 or 2000 years.

[–] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The key to even knowing if your insights are unique is to have a comprehensive understanding of what insights came before you, otherwise you will, no joke, just reinvent the wheel over and over again, like all the 'effective altruists' did.

[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Certainly, my point was just that the priority of unique insights is I think something that can lead people to detrimental biases because a number of those insights of the past are correct (using a math example, Euclidean geometry is still a very useful system). It feels like there's historically a problem of treating philosophy like a series of inspired geniuses, almost like prophets of mutually incompatible realities, and to be a philosopher you need to have your own Doctrine with your own Brand that has whatever sort of novelty or gimmick to separate yourself from the others, not just merely have a set of views and arguments without particular concern one way or the other for novelty.

It's similar to how people who only really wrote commentaries, or who we only have commentaries from, are implicitly degraded. Commentaries aren't as good for branding, though of course some end up working out.

Sorry, I think this is just a bugbear getting g the best of me, as often happens.

[–] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 8 points 2 days ago

Totally understand! It is absolutely a symptom of the academic reality of having to generate a 'brand'.