There's nothing wrong with what you described lane777. Plenty of great writers and thinkers have had similar tendencies.
Here's one description of GK Chesterton I posted in another thread:
"Chesterton's background and training in the visual arts (he studied at the Slade School of Fine Art in London) always influenced his writing and very likely contributed to the preponderance of image over linear argument so many commentators have noted (some favorably, some not). But he was a thereotician at heart...He was never an academic and never aspired to be one; preferring to refer to himself as a journalist....As a journalist, he plunged into whatever topic presented itself; this has lead some to criticize him for spreading himself too thin, never staying with one topic long enough to achieve scholarly depth...Chesterton never trusted the persuasive power of "pure" reason (which he associated with insanity), so it not surprising that his rhetoric inclines towards something less pure -- something that more nearly approximates the language one might hear in the community (as Chesterton would put it) or a third class coach than the language one might hear in a lecture hall."