Certainly, my point was just that the priority of unique insights is I think something that can lead people to detrimental biases because a number of those insights of the past are correct (using a math example, Euclidean geometry is still a very useful system). It feels like there's historically a problem of treating philosophy like a series of inspired geniuses, almost like prophets of mutually incompatible realities, and to be a philosopher you need to have your own Doctrine with your own Brand that has whatever sort of novelty or gimmick to separate yourself from the others, not just merely have a set of views and arguments without particular concern one way or the other for novelty.

It's similar to how people who only really wrote commentaries, or who we only have commentaries from, are implicitly degraded. Commentaries aren't as good for branding, though of course some end up working out.

Sorry, I think this is just a bugbear getting g the best of me, as often happens.