I think I can relate. On one hand I'm almost pathologically curious about things, and want to understand everything that is possible to understand, but as you d

I think I can relate. On one hand I'm almost pathologically curious about things, and want to understand everything that is possible to understand, but as you describe, articles like this usually don't keep my interest at all, which could be seen as borderline mysterious considering my inner workings in general. This is a bit long, and I'm sometimes a bit too fond of phrasing things "interesting", especially when I'm a bit bored. Let's see which category I end up in! The easily dismissed, or the actually interesting? Summary: You have become adept in your topic of choice, many writers are not particularly adept, and most people are not adept at all, making it feel like one is missing out. My observations are these, firstly I've been 'obsessed' with thinking for decades now, and I'm guessing I've become somewhat adept at detecting whenever something will appreciably add to my world model, and if it doesn't add anything significant, there's little reason to invest time. So I don't. Secondly, for me, there are no longer few mysteries in the traditional sense. The entire idea of mystery, and the accompanying grand revelations are to me intrinsically flawed. The world is complex, in some way mind numbingly so, but there is no mystery, no big reveal. There's still thousands, and billions of fascinating detail, but it feels like I've already seen the plot summary. Thirdly, a large fraction of these kind of philosophical waxings one might encounter are rather devoid of content, at least if you have any interest at all in the topic. I remember as a teenager I could be overwhelmed by the grandiosity of the mental castles I built through my own thoughts, ideas, and those of others. The grandiosity obviously wasn't real in any sense, I simply wasn't used to looking deeper into the world of ideas, and there was much new to be found, trivially. However I didn't write about it, to whom would I have written? Today however, many who experience these kind of thoughts that feels like revelations will share them, it's easy to, and I really think they should. Because from time to time there will be gems. Small pockets of glittering original thought, as much as anything is ever original. Most of it is, however, devoid of much meaning beyond the primary experience of whoever wrote it, which has a great value, but maybe not to me. Fourthly, in general, a large fraction of people hasn't really exposed themselves to thinking deeper about themselves and the world. I have, evidently, scared people halfway to death (some exaggeration, but their reaction was as if) by bringing up topics and ideas I thought of as rather mundane. Thus, when people do get exposed they react strongly, which is both surprising, and unsurprising at the same time. It's surprising because I imagine more people to have already been exposed, and unsurprising because I know my first reactions were like that. However, it often made me feel like I'was missing out on something everyone else sees except me, but I've since started to realize it's most often the other way around. It's all these people who has until now missed out on what has to me, through the years, become almost entirely internalized as how things are. I still read peoples stories about their life, their thoughts and experience, often with a little too voracious of an appetite. But I'm not expecting any grand ideas in most of the more philosophical writings. However, if written honestly, without hiding the person of the writer, I might stay for the story within. The philosophy? Well, I probably dealt with that particular conundrum a decade or two ago, but if not, I now have enough practice at devouring, and integrating ideas that I'll rarely be held up for more than a few minutes pondering the new facet before moving on. Fun minutes, as it's nice to be surprised, but minutes nonetheless.