> Both sometimes contain astonishing levels of obviousness (used here with negative connotation)
I recently (re)read something very interesting about 'obviousness' in philosophical writings. The idea was that when a claim is obvious, it is because you are not the target audience for that claim. For example, you live in a world where Sartre lived and wrote and had an impact; the ideas that he wanted to convey are no longer novel, at least partly because he conveyed them and they became part of the culture. (Though even today, there are likely people to whom the claims are not so obvious as they are to you.) The essay starts off talking about claims that are obviously wrong, not obviously right, but later applies the same reasoning to obviously right claims. I am going to abandon an attempt to summarize a 1000-word essay. Just go read it.
I recently (re)read something very interesting about 'obviousness' in philosophical writings. The idea was that when a claim is obvious, it is because you are not the target audience for that claim. For example, you live in a world where Sartre lived and wrote and had an impact; the ideas that he wanted to convey are no longer novel, at least partly because he conveyed them and they became part of the culture. (Though even today, there are likely people to whom the claims are not so obvious as they are to you.) The essay starts off talking about claims that are obviously wrong, not obviously right, but later applies the same reasoning to obviously right claims. I am going to abandon an attempt to summarize a 1000-word essay. Just go read it.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/11/read-history-of-philoso...