Sorry for being so late to the party here but this was a real treat to read. I am tempted to use this discussion next semester in my classroom to highlight the difference between descriptive and normative theorising about the world. I tend to think both have their place in the world although fundamentally they answer very different quest…
Sorry for being so late to the party here but this was a real treat to read. I am tempted to use this discussion next semester in my classroom to highlight the difference between descriptive and normative theorising about the world. I tend to think both have their place in the world although fundamentally they answer very different questions which I think is where you and Sam stand at an impasse on some of these questions.
I think the problem for you Damir is your description of the world feels very empty. Surely even if we have a fight over values of politics it must lead somewhere? Otherwise what is the point of the fight after-all.... yes, the arc of history may not bend towards justice naturally but surely we should strive to convince others to act as if it does in the hope that it may well do.
I think Sam your problem is how can we get to these higher values when we're seemingly trapped into a system which does not and maybe cannot access these higher order values and prioritise them. We've tried systemising them and the attempt by some actors to live by them has acquired mixed results. Yes, we should act more metaphysically I think and this would create greater stakes to our politics which we likely need if we are to find justice but acting this out seems unfeasible currently. Too many actors are locked in limiting the structural conditions to make this happen.
Ultimately, it felt reading this you're both locked into different but ultimately similar conundrums which we all come across- the lack of capacity within our theories about the world. We can only explain so much and perhaps we need to treat explanations like a pick n mix. A little sprinkle here and a sprinkle there from each hypothesis could serve us well?
Sorry for being so late to the party here but this was a real treat to read. I am tempted to use this discussion next semester in my classroom to highlight the difference between descriptive and normative theorising about the world. I tend to think both have their place in the world although fundamentally they answer very different questions which I think is where you and Sam stand at an impasse on some of these questions.
I think the problem for you Damir is your description of the world feels very empty. Surely even if we have a fight over values of politics it must lead somewhere? Otherwise what is the point of the fight after-all.... yes, the arc of history may not bend towards justice naturally but surely we should strive to convince others to act as if it does in the hope that it may well do.
I think Sam your problem is how can we get to these higher values when we're seemingly trapped into a system which does not and maybe cannot access these higher order values and prioritise them. We've tried systemising them and the attempt by some actors to live by them has acquired mixed results. Yes, we should act more metaphysically I think and this would create greater stakes to our politics which we likely need if we are to find justice but acting this out seems unfeasible currently. Too many actors are locked in limiting the structural conditions to make this happen.
Ultimately, it felt reading this you're both locked into different but ultimately similar conundrums which we all come across- the lack of capacity within our theories about the world. We can only explain so much and perhaps we need to treat explanations like a pick n mix. A little sprinkle here and a sprinkle there from each hypothesis could serve us well?