Is it obnoxious when an intellectual is a parasite on more foundational, and foundationally articulated, ideas?

Look at this. This is Tim Challies quoting a seminary professor, Carl Trueman, and doing it as if Trueman is articulating something only the unique and clever Trueman could articulate:

Here’s Carl Trueman doing what he does so well: “When you decide that categories of identity are merely psychological and that reality is constituted by language, you consequently have neither the right nor the ability to call a halt to the Promethean process which you have unleashed just because some of the results prove to be distasteful to you and unhelpful to your political cause.”

Why do I find this obnoxious? Because such observation can be had by the truckload in the writings of writers associated with worldview analysis. A subject that people like Trueman are likely to be ignorantly critical of. I say ignorantly because incorporated into worldview analysis, when done by Christians, is a self-critical element. Anyway...

I suppose it should be seen as positive that good, on-the-mark ideas and observations and analysis seep down into the general universe of discourse. But it might be good if we didn't present people as genius who are dependent on more foundational writers.