I tend to find myself somewhere near the centre on most issues but on individualism, I think I am a bit of a radical.
-
-
I think if rational discourse is the goal, we can probably get pretty close to agreement on where ambiguities lie.
-
12/... it carries an implication that anyone who disagrees is irrational. For those who want to persuade, this might not be a good strategy.
-
I think I see where you're coming from, and, for what it's worth, I doubt we disagree much, if at all, the point you're making. >
-
> What I take from the history of Philosophy is that it's more important to hone your tools than it is to support a particular proposition.>
-
> If you're arguing with those for whom this isn't the case, and you want to be persuasive, then perhaps rationality and evidence are >
-
> the wrong mode with which to engage. But if you are arguing with someone who shares your priorities, then the rational may flourish. >
-
> And I agree that many who will prioritize a position will claim, maybe even believe, that they are only using evidence and logic, >
-
> but I think this can be shown to be false. That there is a place, earlier in the process, where they've abandoned their tools.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.