I think they mean that the unedited, the stream-of-consciousness style you're employing, while "honest" in that you give the reader the the full paper trail of where your conclusions are coming from, has a low signal-to-noise ratio, making it tedious to read.
It's surprising to me that someone compared your work to Wittgenstein's. His writing contains an extraordinary amount of dense, finely-honed philosophical content per page--rather the opposite of the 'let it all hang out' approach you seem to be taking. Which isn't to say either one is strictly better, although the previous commenter may disagree with me.
If you're looking for more feedback, I would suggest that you read. Read orders of magnitude more than you write, in fact, no matter how much you write. No matter how old or how experienced you are, philosophy is a party that has been going on for thousands of years and you have only just arrived. There is always more to read, and for any novel idea or theory you have that is keeping you up at night pondering it, there is almost certainly someone whose entire life's work was dedicated to the exploration of that one idea.
Read Wittgenstein on language, sure, but you're gonna then need Frege and the logical positivists for context. Then read into Hilbert and Russell's work on the foundations of mathematics, and then about Gödel's famous theorems and how they affected that program. There's a rewarding parallel to be drawn between what the conclusion of Wittgenstein's Tractatus says about the philosophy of language and what Gödel's incompleteness theorems say about the foundations of math, but you gotta do the work to get there.
Stream-of-consciousness is a well-worn technique at this point, and not just in writing or speaking. Read about theatre improvisation and jazz, and hip hop, and what those artists have to say about their processes, and read theorists and critics who are skeptical of the very possibility of what you're calling "honesty" in your writing.
Read history. Read about propaganda campaigns and why they worked, and past instances of "information radiation". Look up all the 20th century theorists who warned us about the power of television to make even the most horrific atrocities banal. It's all been said before.
Contributing new thought is hard work, and one of the reasons why it is hard work is that you have to first understand the entire conversation that had been already happening right up until you joined the party. Read anything and everything you can get your hands on, and then read more.
>I think they mean that the unedited, the stream-of-consciousness style you're employing, while "honest" in that you give the reader the the full paper trail of where your conclusions are coming from, has a low signal-to-noise ratio, making it tedious to read.
Certainly fair, great point!
>If you're looking for more feedback, I would suggest that you read. Read orders of magnitude more than you write, in fact, no matter how much you write. No matter how old or how experienced you are, philosophy is a party that has been going on for thousands of years and you have only just arrived. There is always more to read, and for any novel idea or theory you have that is keeping you up at night pondering it, there is almost certainly someone whose entire life's work was dedicated to the exploration of that one idea.
Whenever I am not working, spending time with my wife, or writing, I am reading or listening to books or podcasts on philosophy, thinking, history, etc. Great recommendation.
>Gödel's incompleteness theorems say about the foundations of math, but you gotta do the work to get there.
Have you heard of GEB? Fascinating you'd make that connection here. We could almost call that a Golden Braid on its own.
>Read history. Read about propaganda campaigns and why they worked, and past instances of "information radiation". Look up all the 20th century theorists who warned us about the power of television to make even the most horrific atrocities banal. It's all been said before.
Please point me to some reading about exactly what atrocities they warned of. I'd love to read more. I never claim any ideas are new, as I don't really believe that to be possible. Rather, there are no new ideas under the sun. This points at a more deeply ceded philosophy that we won't get to in this conversation.
>Contributing new thought is hard work, and one of the reasons why it is hard work is that you have to first understand the entire conversation that had been already happening right up until you joined the party.
If you provide any more feedback for me here, PLEASE, let me know where something like I'm working on has been done before as I'm searching far and wide for help.
It's surprising to me that someone compared your work to Wittgenstein's. His writing contains an extraordinary amount of dense, finely-honed philosophical content per page--rather the opposite of the 'let it all hang out' approach you seem to be taking. Which isn't to say either one is strictly better, although the previous commenter may disagree with me.
If you're looking for more feedback, I would suggest that you read. Read orders of magnitude more than you write, in fact, no matter how much you write. No matter how old or how experienced you are, philosophy is a party that has been going on for thousands of years and you have only just arrived. There is always more to read, and for any novel idea or theory you have that is keeping you up at night pondering it, there is almost certainly someone whose entire life's work was dedicated to the exploration of that one idea.
Read Wittgenstein on language, sure, but you're gonna then need Frege and the logical positivists for context. Then read into Hilbert and Russell's work on the foundations of mathematics, and then about Gödel's famous theorems and how they affected that program. There's a rewarding parallel to be drawn between what the conclusion of Wittgenstein's Tractatus says about the philosophy of language and what Gödel's incompleteness theorems say about the foundations of math, but you gotta do the work to get there.
Stream-of-consciousness is a well-worn technique at this point, and not just in writing or speaking. Read about theatre improvisation and jazz, and hip hop, and what those artists have to say about their processes, and read theorists and critics who are skeptical of the very possibility of what you're calling "honesty" in your writing.
Read history. Read about propaganda campaigns and why they worked, and past instances of "information radiation". Look up all the 20th century theorists who warned us about the power of television to make even the most horrific atrocities banal. It's all been said before.
Contributing new thought is hard work, and one of the reasons why it is hard work is that you have to first understand the entire conversation that had been already happening right up until you joined the party. Read anything and everything you can get your hands on, and then read more.