Q&A: On Popularity
On Popularity
Question
A request to Rabbi Michi:
Is it possible for the Rabbi to write a post about the importance of popularity in his view?
In my opinion, the Rabbi's ideas are important, not well enough known, and could contribute a great deal if they were circulated widely.
I'm interested in whether the Rabbi attributes philosophical importance to this, and if so, to what extent.
Likewise regarding his creative process (for the lectures, posts, books, etc.). How much importance does he give to reach during the process?
More generally, in the process of creating content, do you think it's right to aim at as many people as possible, or to focus on the content itself? What is the proper balance between the two?
Best regards,
Achiya.
Answer
I don't see what there is to discuss here. Obviously I want the ideas to spread as widely as possible. Why does this require a philosophical discussion? People have asked me several times why I don't shorten or simplify more, and I answered that as far as I'm concerned, the main thing is not the bottom line but the methodology. For me, the columns are lessons, not posts meant to present an idea. The form of the discussion and the mode of treatment are much more important to me than the conclusions.
Discussion on Answer
I don't see a philosophical question here, and I have nothing to say about it. It's not even defined.
This is mainly a personal question directed at you;
when you started the site, for example, would you have started it even if it had no readers? Even if it had only one reader?
I think this is also a question that every person asks about many of his creations, and I'm interested in what you think the proper attitude is supposed to be.
Come on, what do you think? Would I have started the site without readers? Truly a fascinating philosophical topic.
You're asking from how many readers and up it's worth opening a site? I have no answer. And that's not a particularly interesting question either. A kind of heap paradox. Fine, we've exhausted it.
"Come on, what do you think? Would I have started the site without readers?"
That was exactly my question.
I don't understand why it's obvious to you that the answer is yes.
If you wouldn't have started the site when you had no readers, you would never have ended up with a site that has readers.
In any case, treating the question as a heap paradox answers it for me.
In broad strokes:
If there is enough popularity -> create content.
If there isn't enough popularity -> first create that popularity, and only then create content.
Where is popularity "enough"? That's the heap paradox.
I see things a bit differently, and you helped me understand that. It seems we really have exhausted it.
Thank you very much for the response.
Obviously, obviously you want the ideas to spread as widely as possible.
Still, one can make an effort to present the content in a way that will give it broad reach (even without compromising the quality of the content) — what is the proper effort that should be invested?
I'm interested in hearing your attitude toward this. As a philosophical question applying to any person: how much should he invest in spreading his work?