Despite my appearance on this medium, I’m generally reluctant to share my pseudo-political, philosophical views with anyone who rests outside of my discipline. Most people are trained to argue, not engage in meaningful discourse, which entails actual re-examination and potential reformation of one’s views. In short, emotivist appeals are often the most effective, and I find the most effective way of arguing with the average person is to present an emotivist perspective on reason (irony noted).

A socialist I know openly espouses employing fashionable issues to reach more people. Populism is intellectually unsound, and sadly the only way to effectively garner attention for your cause or idea. Socialism is sexy because people in their late teens and twenties work low-income jobs and only see piles of debts in the form of tuition; the feeling of unfairness and exploitation permeates them. The yearning for the adolescent urge to rebel is manifested only in a slightly more sophisticated manner politically. Socialism is ironically a selfish philosophy, and something I largely consider a four-year temper tantrum through university.

How is cultivating discourse then possible? What hope is there for humanity if not every man is not capable of philosophy? Does the solution lie in Platonism or in Nietzsche’s perspectivism? I hope to develop my voice on Corrupt by further exploring these questions, in my quest to make meaningful discourse possible en masse.