Supposedly both Nietzsche and Seraphim Rose wrote by candlelight (and Nietzsche with a retinal infection). Yet other philosophers have written in daylight, and still others have not needed to write at all.
We're encouraged when we hear stories about overcoming adversity, but romanticizing those journeys can lead to an unnecessary desire for their means(and a lack of appreciation for their ends). Not everyone needs candlelight to understand themselves.
If you want to spawn various schools of thought, make exclusive, definitive, yet vague statements on both accessible and esoteric issues. If you want to be read, use the vocabulary of a familiar religion or philosophy to describe a non-complementary system without stating that you do not accept the premises of the tradition behind the words you use. If you want attention, fight for any sort of freedom or vision in an extreme way — especially extreme violence and extreme nonviolence.
You might try introducing new metaphysical metaphors. Or delineate and practice the pursuit of knowledge through new modes of understanding. Devalue the sacred, or revere the secular. It's worked for Wittgenstein, Hume, Nietzsche, Gandhi, Al Qaeda, Hume, Socrates, Popper, and Marx.
If we can delineate all possible movements and paradigm-shifts, what worth do the movements and paradigm-shifts actually hold? And if we can't, then is there anything supremely unique left to do or think?
.
