Agreed. I also don’t understand why the times seems to accept contributions that present 6th grade level argumentation? > “Fundamentally, humans are not predis

Agreed. I also don’t understand why the times seems to accept contributions that present 6th grade level argumentation? > “Fundamentally, humans are not predisposed to living democratically. One can even make the point that democracy is “unnatural” because it goes against our vital instincts and impulses. What’s most natural to us, just as to any living creature, is to seek to survive and reproduce. And for that purpose, we assert ourselves — relentlessly, unwittingly, savagely — against others: We push them aside, overstep them, overthrow them, even crush them if necessary. Behind the smiling facade of human civilization, there is at work the same blind drive toward self-assertion that we find in the animal realm.“ Seriously, the above passage sounds like something anyone could come up with in about three seconds (with a touch of stylistic flourish). The assertion has absolutely no philosophical nuance, no careful appeal to scientific research, no sophisticated anticipation of counterpoints or caveats. It’s a very basic form of argumentation, and I think that many readers of the times are more than capable of digesting more significant arguments that bring the tradition of political philosophy to bear on the subject more seriously than through a couple of passing references. I know part of the mission of this column is to make philsophy more accessible, but I think the times better carefully consider whether adhering too strongly to that mission is also making modern philosophy seem shallow and childish (which it isn’t). Shame too, I’m sure the author’s other original work is probably interesting and more apropos of a professor. My sense is that the editorial work here perhaps harmed this submission more than it helped.