August 2, 2026
Hot Notes, Cold Takes
Note-Taking and Personal Knowledge Management
Are note-taking apps helping us think — or just feeding productivity panic?
TLDR: A writer argues note-taking apps like Obsidian are just tools, not magic machines responsible for making the world smarter. In the comments, people split between seeing these systems as anxiety-fueled busywork, replacing them with AI, or ditching them entirely for pen and paper.
The latest note-taking showdown isn’t really about one app — it’s about whether these digital systems are useful at all, or just very pretty ways to worry in public. The writer pushes back hard on Brennan Kenneth Brown’s argument that Obsidian, a popular notes app, should be judged by whether it increased public knowledge. Their big comeback: a tool doesn’t create wisdom, people do. In other words, blaming a notebook app for not making society smarter is like blaming a pen for not writing a bestseller by itself.
But the real fireworks are in the comments, where the community turns this into a full-on identity crisis for the productivity crowd. One commenter basically admits the quiet part out loud: elaborate note systems can become anxiety cosplay, a way of "learning defensively" because you’re scared you won’t remember enough. Another drops the coldest plot twist of all: "AI memory systems have replaced that for me. I never read my own notes." Ouch. That line alone feels like a tiny funeral for the entire personal knowledge management scene.
And then came the analog rebellion. One person says they went back to handwritten notebooks because none of the fancy systems ever worked, while another notes Brennan himself posted an update, suggesting even this debate needed a sequel. Meanwhile, a totally random "Blue water bridge! Sarnia!" comment shows up like a confused uncle at Thanksgiving, adding just the right dose of internet chaos.
Key Points
- •The article argues that asking what Obsidian has contributed to public-facing knowledge is the wrong way to evaluate a note-taking tool.
- •It compares Obsidian with Emacs and vim to argue that software tools enable people’s output rather than directly creating knowledge themselves.
- •The author disputes Brennan’s claims that Obsidian’s values include higher-brow or epistemological significance not supported by the cited source.
- •The article says Obsidian’s own messaging emphasizes plain text, file-system storage, backups, versioning, encryption, and user flexibility.
- •The conclusion is that Obsidian should be understood as a customizable tool for personal workflows, and criticism should distinguish the product from its surrounding user ecosystem.