Hossein Jorjani
First publication: 2026 – 09 – 12
A thinker’s writings are not a collection of statements carrying equal weight. Philosophers, scientists, and other authors make passing observations, offer examples, speculate, respond to objections, and develop arguments. These activities should not be confused. An idea’s presence in a text does not, by itself, establish its place in a system.
Someone who has written thousands of pages may have mentioned a remarkable range of subject that later readers consider important. Finding such a passage can establish that the author noticed something. It does not necessarily establish that the author explained it, incorporated it into a theory, or gave it significant explanatory weight.
I distinguish here between mumbles and structural arguments. By a mumble, I mean an observation whose theoretical role remains undeveloped or peripheral—not necessarily something foolish or worthless. A structural argument, by contrast, helps organise the explanation. Other propositions depend upon it; it connects phenomena, supports conclusions, or determines what the system treats as fundamental.
The distinction is not simply between infrequent and frequent statements. An author may repeat a peripheral remark many times, while expressing a foundational proposition only once. Nor is it a distinction between quiet and emphatic language. Rhetorical force does not establish theoretical importance. The relevant question is what explanatory work an idea performs.
One useful test is to ask what happens if the idea is removed. Does the central explanation remain substantially unchanged? If so, the idea may be supplementary. Does its removal undermine important connections or conclusions? If so, it probably carries structural weight. This is a guide to interpretation, not a mechanical rule: some assumptions organise an argument without being stated explicitly.
The same distinction applies to revisions. A later edition may contain more observations, qualifications, and replies to critics without possessing a stronger explanatory structure. An addition may improve the argument, modify its foundations, or merely accommodate a difficulty. Chronological lateness does not by itself confer greater explanatory strength.
Consequently, a criticism of a system cannot always be answered by producing a quotation. “The author also mentioned this” answers a question about textual presence. It does not necessarily answer a question about explanatory priority. A thinker may recognise a phenomenon while assigning it too little independence or weight to explain its consequences adequately.
We should not grant canonical thinkers a privileged status under which every fragment becomes evidence of profound anticipation. Their observations deserve consideration, but their arguments require examination. The task is neither to dismiss the mumbles nor to magnify them into foundations. It is to distinguish what the thinker noticed from what the system actually explains.
Hossein Jorjani 