|
|
|
|
|
|
by heracles
2036 days ago
|
|
|
How do you know people believe him? I can tell you why I love his essays: because of the way he argues. It is very transparent. I seldomly agree with his conclusion(s), but since he is so honest (he is not trying to deceive) in listing his arguments it is just a matter for me to find where he is wrong... or where I am wrong. I find this style so uncommon and stimulating that I hardly can stand the regular "opinion" held by most people. At least it is hard to be intrigued by arguments that doesn't even try to be precise. When PG writes something I pay attention to the words, because I know they were chosen with some care. If I can force open a crack in his arguments I get wiser, and if I don't... the same thing happens. I wish more people wrote like him, but preferably less about startups. They don't interest me as much as attempts at honest discourse. |
|
|
Usually an argument is a series of premises followed by discussion of how those premises combine to lead to a conclusion. The conclusion can be deductive or inductive. I am not demanding a scientific or sociological proof - but there is not even an attempt at explaining why these premises hold. There are two types of people in this world - independent and non-independent thinkers. Why? What if there are 10 types of people in this world, all landing on a spectrum of independent and conventional thought mixed in different aspects of their lives? Why should I accept the premises? What good is reading a conclusion (how to cultivate "independent thought" in the second half of the essay) when I don't know if the premises are even valid?