Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
Yeah, you gotta have a left and right, but then they need to come together somewhere toward the middle to get anything done. Today we are so polarized we are approaching civil war. Plus this damn presidential election is going on so long by the time it gets here everyone will either be disgusted with everyone or ready to fight.
Yeah, you gotta have a left and right, but then they need to come together somewhere toward the middle to get anything done. Today we are so polarized we are approaching civil war. Plus this damn presidential election is going on so long by the time it gets here everyone will either be disgusted with everyone or ready to fight.
Nice article. Thanks for linking that. We’ve heard here on this forum from both ends or polarities; and have heard as well the anger from both ends directed towards anyone in the “middle” who disagrees with any of the tenets of one of those polarities. What we need(?) is some articulation of that “middle” with which most people can agree, if reluctantly. That does not seem to be happening.
Part of it is the issue of decision making in the presence of an ambiguous situation. People do seem divided on that, especially when the consequences of those decisions seem significant, some can do so and some cannot do so, but instead hew to the “party line,” and so avoid, perhaps personal accountability. Sort of “I was just following orders” syndrome.
Short but interesting. That’s what she said last night.
To get serious ,Is this science of righteousness a search for the “middle” between extremes or defining and actualizing “justice?”
Justice seems like something a society should strive to maintain. The only trouble is that who knows what it means? So rather then the active pursuit of justice the intellectual trend is in establishing a passive middle defined by temporal extremes.. Can such a transient middle be considered justice?
Yeah, you gotta have a left and right, but then they need to come together somewhere toward the middle to get anything done. Today we are so polarized we are approaching civil war. Plus this damn presidential election is going on so long by the time it gets here everyone will either be disgusted with everyone or ready to fight.
Nice article. Thanks for linking that. We’ve heard here on this forum from both ends or polarities; and have heard as well the anger from both ends directed towards anyone in the “middle” who disagrees with any of the tenets of one of those polarities. What we need(?) is some articulation of that “middle” with which most people can agree, if reluctantly. That does not seem to be happening.
Part of it is the issue of decision making in the presence of an ambiguous situation. People do seem divided on that, especially when the consequences of those decisions seem significant, some can do so and some cannot do so, but instead hew to the “party line,” and so avoid, perhaps personal accountability. Sort of “I was just following orders” syndrome.
Wish I had some glib answer.
More than that, when people have a view (either their own or the party line) they will ignore contradictory evidence and treat equivocal evidence as support.
Short but interesting. That’s what she said last night.
To get serious ,Is this science of righteousness a search for the “middle” between extremes or defining and actualizing “justice?”
Justice seems like something a society should strive to maintain. The only trouble is that who knows what it means? So rather then the active pursuit of justice the intellectual trend is in establishing a passive middle defined by temporal extremes.. Can such a transient middle be considered justice?
I think part of the problem is the attempt to pursue justice before insuring that one has developed the capacity to recognize it when found. A deceased friend (I was friends with his kids, then we became friends) was a Queens Court justice in Alberta (sort of like a federal appeals judge in US). He told me that his two main concerns in a trial were to determine which of the witnesses were lying, and to keep a level playing field between the parties. That’s the dialectic of the legal system, with justice hovering in the background as the function governing the interplay of contending parties.
Too bad the libertarian party never gained any real competitive traction. But I also feel that their middle ground policies, although personally awesome, gives Americans too much credit.
Too bad the libertarian party never gained any real competitive traction. But I also feel that their middle ground policies, although personally awesome, gives Americans too much credit.
The libertarian party advocated some policies I liked, but then so have all parties. Not even sure what their policies are anymore.
A Libertarian is a social progressive and a fiscal conservative.
Sounds wonderful until you realize that it is a pipe dream dependent upon unmeasurable amounts of human honesty and accountability.
Yeah right.
I’ve occasionally called myself a pragmatic libertarian - as little government as possible, as much as necessary.
I went there for a while back in the day, until I realized it fell under “Democrat” a lot more so than “Libertarian” (plus I had a strangely difficult time remembering how to spell Libertarian correctly—wrote it as “libertine” a few times, as an alternative of a sort, which may be applicable, but not pertinent to the same range of issues ... for the most part).
RSS Feed