no works were cited in the writing of this post

Among the many lies of modernism, that of intellectual property is particularly pernicious. No one owns thoughts; there are no wholly original ideas; and if truth is the object, what does it matter if a thinker is credited or not? For all the talk of humanism, intellectuals are seldom humanists when it comes to disseminating the concepts they claim will help humanity steady its course and become what it ought to become.

One of the foremost manifestations of this problem is the slavish commitment to constructing elaborate works cited pages in any scholarly work, whether in a book, a magazine article, or a journal essay. Any borrowed thought or fact is revealed as such, and proper tribute paid to the supposed originator. Aside from the fact that this makes reading (at least, reading conscientiously) much more of a chore, this deliberate self-scrutiny is destructive in other ways.

It assumes two things that aren't true: that there are original ideas, and that the originator of an idea has some claim or ownership of it, much like the holder of a patent. As for the first, there is nothing new under the sun. No idea or thought is born brand new in the mind of even the most brilliant thinker, but is instead the culmination of thought before him by which he is influenced. His idea may be a progression or elaboration of a previous idea, but it doesn't belong to him any more than the ozone layer belongs to Germany, or Jupiter belongs to Gambia.

The second idea is worse, however. To assume that each thinker is entitled to (if not monetary, at least) intellectual remuneration for his ideas is to make the development and proper attribution of thought more important than the thought itself. Obviously this has a monetary element (especially in our democratic capitalist society), but it also implies that individual men and women are more important than the larger human community they claim to serve.

Good philosophers, theologians, and scientists do their intellectual work, not for acclaim or honor, but to improve the condition of themselves and other people. Only those who wish for no more than acclaim will insist that they be properly cited wherever their ideas or propositions appear in the works of others.

I'm not saying proofs should be withheld when dubious or unpopular claims are made—showing that you aren't the only one proposing the Chinese beat Europe to the North American continent, for instance, is just good scholarship. But if all ideas are to be attributed properly, every sentence in every book would be cited. Instead, authors selectively cite, thus leaving ambiguous the very substantial and concrete fact that everything they commit to print has been espoused, proposed, or at least introduced by someone before them.

For ancient moderns, the originator of an idea matters far less than the idea itself. If one of my ideas is disseminated (however modified and improved it might be) without my knowledge and with no due recognition attributed to me, what should I care? Especially if the dissemination results in some positive response, why should I care whether I'm cited as the originator of the idea? If I engage in intellectual work for the right reasons, my only concern should be that people engage the ideas, and that their effect is good rather than pernicious or non-existent.