It's a sign of deep thinking to address valid criticisms in your writing, especially if you want to make a compelling case for something [1]. Almost never is somebody completely right or completely wrong. Nuance exists everywhere and it is better to acknowledge it rather than risk having your work being dismissed as simplistic.<p>Maybe he means the type of writing intended for social media that optimizes for short attention spans and engagement, but many would argue that has not been a good thing for public discourse.<p>[1] If something seems distracting but worth addressing, put it in a footnote.
I think Paul Graham is wrong about this. I am mentioning his name because it is good, helpful, and reasonable to do so.<p>I don’t know this guy. I don’t know his background or how he came to believe that, apparently, we should sever all connections between a person and his words if what we have to say is critical, rather than fawning and congratulatory. But maybe some reader does know, and will be better able to process my critique.<p>Personally, I find it frustrating when people criticize what are obviously my ideas, yet don’t name me. It makes it much harder for people to check the sources and decide for themselves.<p>If you are interested more in marketing and politics than truth and understanding, of course you should avoid saying the names of your nemeses. Otherwise, be strong and do what’s right.
Anyone who wants a case study in referencing detractors can read Pale Fire by Nabakov. It’s a beautiful 80 page epic poem with 200 pages of footnotes by the author’s less talented and insecure colleague.
Lenin's works are essentially rebuttals to his critics and yes there's something to his arguing against figures who ended up on the garbage heap of history. But the ideas of his critics live on, with new advocates. For example, he wonderfully critiques anarchists and terrorism. We still live with right and left terrorists who think they will make a difference. They will not. And so on.
Charles Darwin did. He came out alright. New editions of <i>On the Origin of Species</i> addressed the criticisms:<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species#Publication_and_subsequent_editions" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species#Publi...</a><p>Charles Darwin will still be remembered long after Paul Graham is forgotten.