It seems at first obvious that the value and truth of something is in what it says, and so the speaker becomes irrelevant and any logical mind knows this and proceeds onward.
Then I thought on all those things that are written and remembered -- the vast majority are signed or attributted to someone. Even writings or quotes that are anonymous will often over time be linked to some sage individual who we all think may well have said something that insightful. So why have we settled on having things such as Authors, Editors, etc who we name instead of just letting the writing speak for itself?
The reason appears two-fold:
1) Previously experience regarding the value of a certain individuals writings or statements implies similar value in newly encountered postings. This allows us to prioritize potentially limited time, so we can read that which is more likely of value to us rather than wading the majority which isn't. The majority of things written are lousy, ill-informed, poorly thought-out, and even more poorly communicated ( I am sure this message itself is proof of this ). So knowing who wrote what is a valuable thing.
2) When reading something that violates a closely held ideal or concept, knowing more about who wrote something may well matter. Knowing that the author of a document which violates some closely, or even commonly, held concept informs the reader. Is it wrong that we more naturally tend to be more initially accepting of something written by a well-respected and proven informed author?
Just thoughts....
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |