From the Q&A, Part 1

On the Q&A for this week I found myself asking my two questions a slight bit more introspectively than I usually do, and having taken some time to consider the things that I asked, here is the first of my thoughts. The first question I had asked of myself was whether I found myself leaning towards literary style or pure philosophical style in my desired interpretations of knowledge and meaning. Do I prefer the literary illusion? or is raw knowledge, non-confounded, straight to conclusions better?

What I have decided is that it is certainly the literary talent that holds my attention the best when I am attempting to accept a new piece of information, but at the same time scares me a slight bit more. The reason I am intimidated by this style is that I believe the possibility of a swayed decision is much more likely, and that the bias' that may be created in a literary work are much more difficult to ignore. However, this still does not ignore the fact that I simply learn better and with much more ease if I can follow a story that derives meaning rather than just reading through the rule book.