I used to write bad articles! And I embrace that!
Reading old articles in Harmonia Philosophica caught me a bit by surprise. I expected my old articles to be different than the ones I write now, but not so much. My writing style was much different - not so poetic as it is now. The meanings I tried to convey were much more "rude" - no corners were cut. The final conclusion was raw if any clear conclusions existed at all - I used to write the things I thought with no abbreviations and most of the times I just mentioned the facts with the arrogance that the reader would just understand things the way I did. Explanations were scarce - if any. These were my thoughts and if you did not get it then it was your problem.
My initial reactions were... well, reactions. I thought of somehow "fixing" the old articles, even though the effort needed to update them put me off immediately. I then started to look at the articles again. Could they be so bad? I started reading them again with a more receptive and open mind. And I started seeing it...
In the beginning it was haze and blurry. But as I read more and more I finally recognized that ghostly figure hiding behind the mist of the words persistently written on the Internet so long ago. It was me, staring right back at my current equally arrogant self. Was I really any better now because the writing style was improved? Did I not reach the same conclusions? Is a child worst in saying what a grown up says, only because it cannot express it in the same way? Is the calm and symbolic way of saying things better than the crude raw presentation of the facts?
A kid simply refers to things happening without referring to the notion of time at all. A "grown up" refers to the same thing in multiple pages long essays, while trying to keep appearances. He presents the same ideas (e.g. that time does not exist) while disguising his opinion under a cloak of political "correctness". Is that anyway better? The more I thought about it the more I understood that in many ways my old articles were better than the ones I write now. And the fact that I did not like them merely pointed out the fact that I was corroded by the notion of being polite and "civilized". But the truth is not civil. The truth is not polite. The truth crushes you with its own shear power of clearness, uniqueness and ingenuity. You believe that the notion of time exists? Then you are simply wrong. And yes, you are stupid if you choose to insist on your opinion. Saying that you just have a "different opinion" does not make things any different. We can't all be clever and at the same time correct on everything. Someone is wrong. It is just a matter of how polite we wish to be with him. (surely, I could be wrong - don't assume that what I say here does not or could not apply to me as well)
It is like the Old and the New Testament. People like the latter. And they are afraid of the former. The Old Testament is crude, rude and raw. And people do not like it when they are told of the truth (any version of the truth) this way.
We want people to be nice to us. Or we will cry...
All in all, my old articles are here to stay. They are me. And I am them. I used to write these things. I believed them. I still do. Now I write in a different way. But I still write the same things. At the end, it is not the things which I write that define me, but me that defines the things I write!
So when you read old Harmonia Philosophica articles, ask not whether the same person wrote them. Everything changes and yet everything is the same.
The writer is not dead. The writer is still here!
