The goal of this sequence is to create a model with enables one to think more rationally regarding political questions. Or, maybe, societal questions (since I maybe am using the word politics too broadly for most here). The intention was to create a better tool of thought.
I don’t think it succeeds.
Rationally regarding political questions is about seeing shades of gray.
You basically argue for a idealistic liberatian view of politics which is hold in history mainly by people who don’t win any political conflicts.
I don’t think that the idealistic-pragmatist divide is that great, but if I should place myself in either camp, then it’s the latter. From my perspective this model would not, if followed through, suggest to do anything that will not have a positive impact (from one’s own perspective).
I don’t think that the idealistic-pragmatist divide is that great, but if I should place myself in either camp, then it’s the latter.
Pragmatists don’t talk about fisherman who don’t want bridges to be build but about realpolitik.
Your model is build upon idealistic foundations instead of observations of how politics works in the real world.
I don’t think it succeeds. Rationally regarding political questions is about seeing shades of gray.
You basically argue for a idealistic liberatian view of politics which is hold in history mainly by people who don’t win any political conflicts.
I don’t think that the idealistic-pragmatist divide is that great, but if I should place myself in either camp, then it’s the latter. From my perspective this model would not, if followed through, suggest to do anything that will not have a positive impact (from one’s own perspective).
Pragmatists don’t talk about fisherman who don’t want bridges to be build but about realpolitik. Your model is build upon idealistic foundations instead of observations of how politics works in the real world.