I am suspect of systems, yet I find some of those writers who are revered may, in fact, be revered because of the lack of clarity in their work.
There is no doubt that Kant was a genius, and to me, there is no doubt his work is important. But it is difficult to discern what he truly meant to say. There is a difference between a thinking genius and a communicating genius. He may have been the former, but I doubt he was the latter.
Kierkegaard wrote under nine pseudonyms. Existentialism, of which he is purported to be the “Father,” seems far removed from his original intent, but who can be sure?
Nietzsche’s work, Thus Spake Zarathustra, is ambiguous. I am shocked by the differences of interpretation.
Yet, when I read some other less respected but clearer thinker (perhaps C. S. Lewis), I am amazed by the quality of expression. His genius did not get in the way of his pen.
