Since this work puts more focus on the originality, the summaries of previous studies or other authors are less focused. In many academic papers, it often is seen that they make the summaries of other articles in most part and having less originality in it. The articles that are written as explanatory ones to map the theories of different authors or explain different theories in a skilful manner is helpful for readers and stimulate curiosity, but there are other articles often not much skilful. Just making summaries of other papers is less important because it is what can be understood by reading them. What I care about more in my work is the ideas based on how I look at the world and what I think about it. Since this is not what takes the form of a textbook which explains chronologically what were argued by the previous intellectuals, this writing will put more emphasis on the robustness of the ideas rather than who talked what in the past. The ideas posed are pulled into the texts by being processed in my way of thinking as how I look at the world influences the connections of ideas presented in this writing.

When it comes to the style of this work, I care about philosophy which is practical to the public and has wisdom of the previous generations. Philosophy is not merely to go into the narrower expertise, but also expanding into other domains and ages which enable to find the similar patterns. Detailed expertise in one age or one author is also helpful for reader to understand well on them, however not necessarily one has to persist in studying them. Also, using difficult words or academic words is not what can be spread to the mass. Dialogues between people which is much easier for them to understand in this sense may have helped the works to sustain.

This work is not limited to a discipline, it is related to philosophy, politics, information theory, studies on mind, linguistics, and others if any further development. It is not written to be limited to one domain but written to expand to different domains if possible. This is what this work asserts that it is not necessarily limited to one discipline which many authors do. This doesn’t mean that any work should not be written with the limitation on one discipline. Some of the works maintain its worth by that refinement and provide the insights, however all works don’t have to be limited to one discipline and it sometimes hinder the progress by that restriction. This also insists that writing freely is one of the essential goods that author can bear in oneself. The way that this work is written is to get closer to the anti-disciplinary work(1). In explaining that concept, a better example is that “drunk people look for their keys under the street lights because that’s where the lights are, but there are a lot of keys in the dark areas between the lamps”(2). Learning often makes one become disciplined, but in the meantime one needs to be anti-disciplinary to bring an invention to the world. Even the style of a work can be varied depending on author, and the kinds of format in writing is too limited at least at the beginning of 2020s, particularly in academic papers. I don’t think that I have to follow the frequently used format of academic papers to write this work, that is why I didn’t have that kind of restriction in my mind when writing.

Especially, the academic ones of the beginning of 21^st century has their restriction of narrowness too much, the detailed knowledge on one specific subject, and using academic words. It may not be written in the intention that it is to be spread to the public, but the way they are written is not favourable to the general public limits the influence of a work. People often depends on technical words when having difficulty in explaining it in one perspective, and it is understandable to use it for avoiding prolonged sentences in another, it causes the limitation of their articles. Besides, it feels that what are argued in academic disciplines doesn’t feel close to the life of the general public.

As for academic world, the works by students have to refer to the academic debates, but the ideas presented by students who proposed their ideas not referring to the academic debates of their time and the past could be innovative ideas which progress the intellectual debates of the human beings. The intellectual debates do include the academic ones as well as the ones proposed by those who work outside the academic world. It actually feels that the intellectual progresses are hindered at least in some cases in the academic world by their narrowness and conditions. I don’t even believe that we have to cite others to propose good ideas, and even if one argues that it is their original ones and comes from their thinking it cannot be completely original as we are influenced by the past which have been structured by those who were born earlier than us. Given these conditions, I felt it decreases the possibility that the academic world of the beginning of 21st century can give birth the students like John Locke, John Stuart Mill, or Ludwig Wittgenstein even though their courses often require students to read their works and they often are referred to, the style of output allowed is restricted compared with those works. Writing a work in the style of Mill doesn’t lead to a high score, citing the works of academic ones are demanded which loses individuality.

In addition, whether I have read or cited a number of articles that is commonly read by the researchers should matter a tiny bit, or I would say that it doesn’t necessarily matter whether I have read one paper or not, what matters is what I write by myself and not citing others. The evaluation of certain criteria restricts the uniqueness of a work. Proposing a new paradigm makes sometimes difficult to show evidence as the people of the former generations haven’t said in the way the one is going to make arguments or fewer ones may have said but not found by the one. Even citing or explaining the previous works of others is really required is doubtful. I write in a way that I think, and the necessity to show the works of others makes unnecessary limitation on one’s work. Although I agree that citing others strengthens the theory that I propose, is it really necessary to require it to all cases? It is more difficult to write a new than citing others which is to pull the relevant works to one’s work. Proposing own paradigm to the world requires further efforts. Focusing on the original makes the existence of oneself in the world.

Although the works written by the intellectuals of the previous generations influenced my thoughts and I am grateful for them, the original concepts proposed by them may not totally be the same in my understanding of them, in the most precise degree. That is because to be in the completely same understanding of the concepts with the authors who proposed them is not possible so much as I cannot be in the completely same positions with them. That is to say that I do not study a person, but I do focus on my perspectives on problems that the world has while connecting to interesting ideas which were written by them in the past.

(1) The concept of antidisciplinary comes from the explanation by Joi Ito. He explained it many places, one of which is Ito, J., 2014. Antidisciplinary. [Online] Available at: https://joi.ito.com/weblog/2014/10/02/antidisciplinar.html [Accessed 27 May 2023].

(2) Joi Ito explained the concept by referring to what Ed Boyden often describes in MITLibraries, 2018. Grand Challenges Keynote: Joi Ito. [Online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5F__Jqx3Nk
[Accessed 28 June 2023]. Around 5:27-. According to p. 10 of Ito, J., 2018. The Practice of Change. [Online]
Available at: https://web.media.mit.edu/~joi/files/ito_phd_diss_v1.11.pdf
[Accessed 11 May 2023], Ed Boyden “often refers to the famous adage that the American philosopher, Abraham Kaplan, talks about as ‘the principle of the drunkard’s search'” and “Boyden talks about the need to create flashlights — metaphors for the tools he and his team are designing and building — to facilitate a search for keys that have fallen in the dark areas between street lamps”.