I’m an ideas man not a details person. This gets me into all sorts of trouble in relation to questions of granularity. For example I like the idea of sugar but putting it in grain by grain seems too much – loose tea also a problem.
But how are you supposed to make money from an idea? You could invent something but what if your thoughts tend towards the philosophical rather than the practical? Sure half the world could be holding up your face on a placard and the other half could be burning your visage in effigy but does that pay the rent? The problem comes with the way you’re forced to publish your ideas.
Take the tenets of socialism. That kind of thing will make you no kind of cash. What they needed to have done was to get the tenants of socialism. You know the idea “you can borrow my ideas for a bit but you have to pay me royalties”. And perhaps that would make people more respectful of the ideas they are co-opting. I mean you get these little groups of early adopters and they tend to add on their own ideas. If you were only to set up a premium rate number to call when things go weird, you wouldn’t get so many different warring factions. I mean just look at Carl Marx. He came up with his ideas and everyone and his grandmother have had a go at re-writing them (his grandmother’s ideas were – sadly – never published). And okay so it’s settled down into the three main groups now. But each of the groups has got some other joker edging in on the credit. There’s Leninist Marxism, Stalinist Marxism and of course Groucho Marxism
The last being the most recent and most enduringly popular. The problem with most -isms and ideas in general (of a philosophical nature) is that they are generally ideas that the thinker thinks others should do. The do as I say not as a I do philosophy. Or is it just simply that philosophers don’t want to be a member of a group that would have someone like them for a member?