I have started reading your posts. I am not trained in philosophy, but in other fields, so I have struggled when I try to read the works of philosophers.
I think I may be having a similar and familiar struggle as I read your words.
There is no “I” in your essays. This seeming lack of a subjective voice has an interesting effect on me.
In some ways, it is refreshing. There is much very loud rhetoric, opinion and confusion in the many voices presented in social media. They almost seem to be waging a war for your attention, your clicks… your soul. And some can be seductive, masterful with language.
Your voice is not this.
When I read your words, the term “dialectic” came to mind. From WIKI:
“Dialectic (Ancient Greek: διαλεκτική, romanized: dialektikḗ; German: Dialektik), also known as the dialectical method, refers originally to dialogue between people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to arrive at the truth through reasoned argument. Dialectic resembles debate, but the concept excludes subjective elements such as emotional appeal and rhetoric;[1] the object is more an eventual and commonly held truth than the "winning" of a (often binary) competition. It has its origins in ancient philosophy and continued to be developed in the Middle Ages.”
As I confirmed the definition, it seemed to me that you were deliberately avoiding using rhetoric and “emotional appeal”. Yet there is an agenda, a reason you choose particular topics, and a pattern to the discourse.
I am quite used to reading objective essays, but these usually pertain to topics around objective (and often measurable) reality. Even in these (mostly science journals), I can sense the author’s presence, hear their voice in the choice of “problem”, the way the investigation is approached.
There is something that this mind, reading, can relate to - a person I can sense, wondering how the world works, and willing to explore.
So why am I uncomfortable reading your words? They are, many of them, interesting words. I looked them up to make sure 😏.
But sometimes it feels… lifeless maybe? I can’t sense the person underneath, so maybe that makes it more difficult to do the hard work of following the argument. There is another mind, writing of mindful things, but I cannot perceive them.
Or maybe I become aware of all the spaces around the carefully constructed argument, and I am drawn there instead 🤣.
Perhaps I am perceiving the dialectical structure of the argument as a “trick”, and I am wary, looking for pitfalls.
Interesting to contemplate, and I thank you for this experience.
Thank you. This is one of the most thoughtful critiques I've received.
You're right that there's an intentional absence of "me." I'm trying to remove as much rhetorical leverage as possible so readers engage with the reasoning rather than the personality behind it. Whether I succeed is another question.
You also picked up on something important: there is a pattern. But the pattern isn't meant to lead people to my conclusions; it's meant to slow us down before we reach our own. That's the heart of discernment.
Your point about it feeling "lifeless" is worth sitting with. If removing too much personality also removes the sense that another human being is genuinely wrestling with these questions, then that's valuable feedback. The challenge is finding the balance between intellectual discipline and human presence without letting either overwhelm the other.
Thank you for giving me something to discern in my own writing.
First, I have a sense of who the person is behind the words. HE is a JOURNALIST who shares some of my concerns about the attention economy.
So immediately, I feel a connection with a person. Is he engaging my confirmation bias? Yup. Am I aware that he is doing this? Yup. Do I fool myself into thinking my self awareness protects me? Yup 🤣.
I keep reading because I am intrigued. Will this person offer me insights? A way out of this conundrum? Kinship in the concern about this issue? Will he try to sell me snake oil, or the experience of my mind expanding a bit beyond its comfort zone 😏.
I think I like narratives. I like seeing the structure of someone else’s reasoning and interests. I like seeing what my own mind does with that, and what that reveals about my flaws in thinking and my vulnerabilities.
So does this help me build a stronger wall to protect myself, or does it open me up, let me see things more clearly?
Narrative helps us connect with the person; discernment helps us evaluate the ideas. My goal isn’t to remove the human element. It’s to make sure the person isn’t carrying more weight than the reasoning. In today’s attention economy, charisma often outranks truth. Discernment asks us to reverse that.
I tend to acknowledge and attempt to discount the charisma of the author. Then I am better focus on the argument.
If the person’s reasoning is unsound, my assessment of their competence seems to inoculate me to the charisma. In fact, I would judge them poorly for fooling themselves, and especially poorly for trying to fool me.
I am not sure if this is a process of “Discernment”. But it is “a process”, for sure.
Do you discriminate between folks who intentionally “disinform” and people who unintentionally propagate “misinformation”? I guess I will need to follow your interventions to see.
I do. Intent matters, but it’s also one of the hardest things to know from the outside. Discernment starts with evaluating the claim before assigning motives. I try to separate “this is false” from “this person intended to deceive,” because the first is often knowable, while the second usually requires much stronger evidence.
Hi HU:
I have started reading your posts. I am not trained in philosophy, but in other fields, so I have struggled when I try to read the works of philosophers.
I think I may be having a similar and familiar struggle as I read your words.
There is no “I” in your essays. This seeming lack of a subjective voice has an interesting effect on me.
In some ways, it is refreshing. There is much very loud rhetoric, opinion and confusion in the many voices presented in social media. They almost seem to be waging a war for your attention, your clicks… your soul. And some can be seductive, masterful with language.
Your voice is not this.
When I read your words, the term “dialectic” came to mind. From WIKI:
“Dialectic (Ancient Greek: διαλεκτική, romanized: dialektikḗ; German: Dialektik), also known as the dialectical method, refers originally to dialogue between people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to arrive at the truth through reasoned argument. Dialectic resembles debate, but the concept excludes subjective elements such as emotional appeal and rhetoric;[1] the object is more an eventual and commonly held truth than the "winning" of a (often binary) competition. It has its origins in ancient philosophy and continued to be developed in the Middle Ages.”
As I confirmed the definition, it seemed to me that you were deliberately avoiding using rhetoric and “emotional appeal”. Yet there is an agenda, a reason you choose particular topics, and a pattern to the discourse.
I am quite used to reading objective essays, but these usually pertain to topics around objective (and often measurable) reality. Even in these (mostly science journals), I can sense the author’s presence, hear their voice in the choice of “problem”, the way the investigation is approached.
There is something that this mind, reading, can relate to - a person I can sense, wondering how the world works, and willing to explore.
So why am I uncomfortable reading your words? They are, many of them, interesting words. I looked them up to make sure 😏.
But sometimes it feels… lifeless maybe? I can’t sense the person underneath, so maybe that makes it more difficult to do the hard work of following the argument. There is another mind, writing of mindful things, but I cannot perceive them.
Or maybe I become aware of all the spaces around the carefully constructed argument, and I am drawn there instead 🤣.
Perhaps I am perceiving the dialectical structure of the argument as a “trick”, and I am wary, looking for pitfalls.
Interesting to contemplate, and I thank you for this experience.
Thank you. This is one of the most thoughtful critiques I've received.
You're right that there's an intentional absence of "me." I'm trying to remove as much rhetorical leverage as possible so readers engage with the reasoning rather than the personality behind it. Whether I succeed is another question.
You also picked up on something important: there is a pattern. But the pattern isn't meant to lead people to my conclusions; it's meant to slow us down before we reach our own. That's the heart of discernment.
Your point about it feeling "lifeless" is worth sitting with. If removing too much personality also removes the sense that another human being is genuinely wrestling with these questions, then that's valuable feedback. The challenge is finding the balance between intellectual discipline and human presence without letting either overwhelm the other.
Thank you for giving me something to discern in my own writing.
Here is a post by someone who shares some of your interests, and mine. I am contemplating why I find it “engaging”.
https://moderated4e33389199914674b2bb3bc.substack.com/p/theyre-betting-you-dont-remember?r=7asx5i&utm_medium=ios
First, I have a sense of who the person is behind the words. HE is a JOURNALIST who shares some of my concerns about the attention economy.
So immediately, I feel a connection with a person. Is he engaging my confirmation bias? Yup. Am I aware that he is doing this? Yup. Do I fool myself into thinking my self awareness protects me? Yup 🤣.
I keep reading because I am intrigued. Will this person offer me insights? A way out of this conundrum? Kinship in the concern about this issue? Will he try to sell me snake oil, or the experience of my mind expanding a bit beyond its comfort zone 😏.
I think I like narratives. I like seeing the structure of someone else’s reasoning and interests. I like seeing what my own mind does with that, and what that reveals about my flaws in thinking and my vulnerabilities.
So does this help me build a stronger wall to protect myself, or does it open me up, let me see things more clearly?
😉
Narrative helps us connect with the person; discernment helps us evaluate the ideas. My goal isn’t to remove the human element. It’s to make sure the person isn’t carrying more weight than the reasoning. In today’s attention economy, charisma often outranks truth. Discernment asks us to reverse that.
This makes sense.
I tend to acknowledge and attempt to discount the charisma of the author. Then I am better focus on the argument.
If the person’s reasoning is unsound, my assessment of their competence seems to inoculate me to the charisma. In fact, I would judge them poorly for fooling themselves, and especially poorly for trying to fool me.
I am not sure if this is a process of “Discernment”. But it is “a process”, for sure.
Do you discriminate between folks who intentionally “disinform” and people who unintentionally propagate “misinformation”? I guess I will need to follow your interventions to see.
I do. Intent matters, but it’s also one of the hardest things to know from the outside. Discernment starts with evaluating the claim before assigning motives. I try to separate “this is false” from “this person intended to deceive,” because the first is often knowable, while the second usually requires much stronger evidence.
Hey! I accidentally deleted your comment on my article. If you respond again…I will comment back 😊
Hi Brandy, sorry for delay. Missed it.