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.
Your preferences are quite welcome as well; I personally enjoy your posts and would like to encounter them on Omnilibrium. I remembered the website having had a Philosophy category, but since then apparently the categories got re-organised.
It’s often difficult to draw the line between object-level and meta-level, so I don’t think such a re-categorisation would be meaningful or achieve much, but if we could play around with existing categories to include political philosophy in a more general sense, over time it will probably fill up with the sort of meta-level articles and discussions that you find interesting.
In the end, users make an online community what it is, so if you’d like to see it moving in a certain direction, cast your vote through participation.
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
At least in theory, it may be possible for people to find common objectives even when their values are fundamentally different. For instance, some conservatives support raising the minimum wage on the ground that it reduces the number of low-skill jobs and deters illegal immigration.
I would probably add a historical debate section as well.
History is already included as one of the main sections (though it currently includes only one article and one debate topic). You just need to click on “History” below the banner to get to it. Once there are enough posts on the topic of political philosophy, it can be also added as a separate section.
You are welcome to open a new debate about the Spanish Civil War (personally, I also find the topic interesting).
At least in theory, it may be possible for people to find common objectives even when their values are fundamentally different. For instance, some conservatives support raising the minimum wage on the ground that it reduces the number of low-skill jobs and deters illegal immigration.
If you really want a topic where people with very different values and world views agree, look at the attitude towards Greece defaulting. There you can find people arguing that a Greek default would be good because it will lead to X which is good according to my values, and others arguing that a Greek default would be good because it will lead to not X which is good according to my values.
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.
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.
Your preferences are quite welcome as well; I personally enjoy your posts and would like to encounter them on Omnilibrium. I remembered the website having had a Philosophy category, but since then apparently the categories got re-organised.
It’s often difficult to draw the line between object-level and meta-level, so I don’t think such a re-categorisation would be meaningful or achieve much, but if we could play around with existing categories to include political philosophy in a more general sense, over time it will probably fill up with the sort of meta-level articles and discussions that you find interesting.
In the end, users make an online community what it is, so if you’d like to see it moving in a certain direction, cast your vote through participation.
At least in theory, it may be possible for people to find common objectives even when their values are fundamentally different. For instance, some conservatives support raising the minimum wage on the ground that it reduces the number of low-skill jobs and deters illegal immigration.
History is already included as one of the main sections (though it currently includes only one article and one debate topic). You just need to click on “History” below the banner to get to it. Once there are enough posts on the topic of political philosophy, it can be also added as a separate section.
You are welcome to open a new debate about the Spanish Civil War (personally, I also find the topic interesting).
If you really want a topic where people with very different values and world views agree, look at the attitude towards Greece defaulting. There you can find people arguing that a Greek default would be good because it will lead to X which is good according to my values, and others arguing that a Greek default would be good because it will lead to not X which is good according to my values.
Feel free to open a discussion on any topic that you care about if you don’t find the existing topics interesting.
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.