I've recently encountered two groups of (I kid in part) neo-Scholastics. The first group thinks that, if you define "sexuality" to have a moral component, you can remove any social problems which may arise from immoral aspects of sexuality (under the dictionary definition). The
-
-
Maybe? I really don't know. If people want to say that X is bad because Y, I don't see how identifying "X" as "being politics" or "being about politics" helps, unless something intrinsic about politics drives the argument. But I likely lack pertinent context.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
you always must evaluate the idea for true or false or undetermined or maybe or contextually true/false/maybe or whatever. immediately following that evaluation is the political evaluation agree/disagree/undecided. sometimes the truth evaluation itself is politicized.
-
I think truth-approximating & falsity-reduction is always going to be a social endeavor; and various mathematical and empirical results from political science, economics, and other fields will often prove informative. But I don't see how just saying "that's politics" adds much.
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.