= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Rational Discussion of Controversial Topics - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (10)
I think currently it is a bit too object-level for my preferences, I am far more interested in discussing more meta level political philosophy e.g. Rawls vs. Nozick vs. others. I think as long as people believe in fundamentally different political values and philosophies they cannot really make a lot of progress towards a consensus on the object level.
Would it be a good idea to separate the debate forum into object and meta or politics and political philosophy? I would certianly support that.
I would probably add a historical debate section as well. This is really an excellent testing ground of political philosophy. You really a learn about yourself and others by discussing whom you would support and how reluctantly or enthusiastically during the Spanish Civil War for example and who of the famous people got it right or wrong.
Why would progress look like reaching a consensus on an issue? For example having an accurate picture why people hold the views that they actually do vs just assuming they disagree with you in ways that you would disagree on the issue is the kind of progress that can do a lot of good without changing anybodys "vote" on an issue in itself.