I agreed with most of the author’s individual statements. But they weren’t part of a logical structure.
It began with the intriguing claim, “It is far more important to answer who one is than what one is”, and I kept looking for an explanation of that claim. But the author never got around to explaining what “knowing who one is” meant, or why it was important.
It was one-sided. There are advantages to identifying with a group. If the post had a point, that point could only be, “Don’t ever join a group or form bonds with others.”
I agreed with most of the author’s individual statements. But they weren’t part of a logical structure.
It began with the intriguing claim, “It is far more important to answer who one is than what one is”, and I kept looking for an explanation of that claim. But the author never got around to explaining what “knowing who one is” meant, or why it was important.
It was one-sided. There are advantages to identifying with a group. If the post had a point, that point could only be, “Don’t ever join a group or form bonds with others.”