This sounds like how I would write when I was on adderall. I mean, what the hell is this statement?
"I love questions that seem naughty in some way — for example, by seeming counterintuitive or overambitious or heterodox. Ideally all three. This essay is an example. Writing about the best essay implies there is such a thing, which pseudo-intellectuals will dismiss as reductive, though it follows necessarily from the possibility of one essay being better than another."
That's not what "follows necessarily" means Mr. Graham. Are these pseudo-intellectual spectres literally just you strawmanning your own counterfactual? I can't imagine you actually listening to anyone you would call a pseudo-intellectual.
That quote is also just factually wrong because we can have partial orders, or even just have a lot of totally different essays that happen to be equally good.
I admired Paul Graham's blog posts.. when I was an impressionable college sophomore.
Then I guess after I went to grad school and actually read a lot and tried to do some science and research. I find this kind of popular writing superficial, flawed, inefficient, and even conceited. That's just my subjective experience. But it seems some young people in tech just lap it up, he functions as a kind of thought leader for the industry.
I think if you've ever read self help books, the content is quite similar. It is the kind of writing that seems insightful at first glance because it restates somewhat obvious things in new ways.
I'm not saying that his arguments are 'wrong' persay, it's just that it's not particularly original or interesting.
>It is the kind of writing that seems insightful at first glance because it restates somewhat obvious things in new ways. I'm not saying that his arguments are 'wrong' persay, it's just that it's not particularly original or interesting.
You're spot on. Looking to this very comment section, you have people calling this line out as being enlightening:
>While breadth comes from reading and talking and seeing, depth comes from doing.
I would hope this is self evident to anyone who has ever tried _anything_.
"I love questions that seem naughty in some way — for example, by seeming counterintuitive or overambitious or heterodox. Ideally all three. This essay is an example. Writing about the best essay implies there is such a thing, which pseudo-intellectuals will dismiss as reductive, though it follows necessarily from the possibility of one essay being better than another."
That's not what "follows necessarily" means Mr. Graham. Are these pseudo-intellectual spectres literally just you strawmanning your own counterfactual? I can't imagine you actually listening to anyone you would call a pseudo-intellectual.