![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
so i'm working on a paper for my contemporary liberalism class. though it's cross-listed as economics, political science, and philosophy, it's mostly very dense philosophical questions. i wished i'd taken my political analysis class earlier in my academic career, because i'm sure it would have come in handy in soem tangential sense, but i'm taking it at the same time as this class, which i'm sure will help my marks next year, but not as much this year.
anyway, the next few weeks of this class are going to be the most interesting of this class. we're talking democracy, and last class we had a discussion about interest groups (the subject of another of my classes this term!) which was great. i feel like i'm finally in the loop. so i've decided to write a paper dissing the idea that democratic decisions are inherently good and knowledgeable, because a lot of the philosophers advocating for this pretty much think that only smart people can vote. does that sound as undemocratic to anyone else as it does to me? exactly.
so what do you guys think? kat, you're a philosophy major, right? got any pointers for lil' ol' me?
(aside: is all the all-lowercase thing annoying?)
anyway, the next few weeks of this class are going to be the most interesting of this class. we're talking democracy, and last class we had a discussion about interest groups (the subject of another of my classes this term!) which was great. i feel like i'm finally in the loop. so i've decided to write a paper dissing the idea that democratic decisions are inherently good and knowledgeable, because a lot of the philosophers advocating for this pretty much think that only smart people can vote. does that sound as undemocratic to anyone else as it does to me? exactly.
so what do you guys think? kat, you're a philosophy major, right? got any pointers for lil' ol' me?
(aside: is all the all-lowercase thing annoying?)
