Perelman? I always thought his proof was self-evident. Kidding! For papers, yes, there's a lot of difficulty. I'm not sure it's possible to demand sense from

Perelman? I always thought his proof was self-evident. Kidding! For papers, yes, there's a lot of difficulty. I'm not sure it's possible to demand sense from a paper in the way that one can from a discursive partner. As Emmanuel Levinas puts it in his "Toward the Other" (1963): > This makes no sense. Our text must be understood in another way. I worked hard at it. I told my troubles to my friends. For [the text] requires discourse and companionship. Woe to the self-taught! Admittedly, he immediately follows: > Of course one must have good luck and find intelligent interlocutors. So if I were to accept his authority, I'd have to forfeit my position entirely!