In response to my writing, our resident Matthater offered the following “critique.” I was called an idiot for not understanding it, and I just want to see if anyone here does.
Matthater wrote: “All you did was experience a (mental) connection between two things due to their sharing some thing (meaning, one was associated with something that, cognitively, bridged to the other), and then wrote it out with an idea one is a more progressive version of the other.” (Which supposedly makes it poetry, not philosophy.)
I would really appreciate if anyone could tell me what that is supposed to mean. Also, a few random examples of my writing to compare the “critique” to.
-
The heart of wisdom.-- Virtue might be called the heart of wisdom for, like the hearts of women, it only becomes elusive when we begin to think that we possess it.
-
Beauty that judges.-- The Greeks thought that great physical beauty was a mark of divine favor that absolved a person from all wrong doing: it was even the final argument for some jurists. What this truly examples is the innocence of the Greeks themselves: a delight in form, in superficiality, pushed to its most spiritual conclusion, a delight in superficiality and form that has become profound, philosophical, that judges.
-
The little stone.-- “The great man digests hard things,” says the French proverb. And yet perhaps the hardest thing of all to digest is the fear of unworthiness, of debasing one’s self, of not being great: that is always the little stone that corrupts us, that prevents the heart from seizing upon its chief desire.
-
Eternal ambitions.-- Zeno of Citium was the most vauntful man of his time, and more ambitious in refusing all honors, than Thamyris in rejecting none.