It seems to me that a well constructed–which is to say accurate and complete–perception has an esthetic element to it. There is a dynamic to problem solving that in my view is fully comparable to that of perspective, and light and shadow in painting; to the careful choice of felicitous words in poetry and prose; to harmonies and melodies in music.
I had a vision the other day of using a “painting” approch to debate the other day. One person writes out their argument on a given topic on a sheet of paper mounted to the wall. Someone who disagrees with them does the same. Wherever the “opponent” wishes, the other person must expand or contract their perception. They must abstract complex prose, or defend on the level of detail apparently unanchored premises.
Difference can be bridged, if approached in this way. Most bad thinking is the result of mistaking abstractions for facts: a good example is “the rich become rich at the expense of the poor”. This CAN be true. It HAS been true in some times and places, but not over time within a free market economy in which legal rights are defended consistently and honestly.
As an example of this method, I would demand of someone making this statement that they define “free market”, and show to what extent our markets are actually free. Housing is not free. Banking is not free. We do not even control our money supply, even though all aspects of our economic well being depend on monetary policy. Construction is not free. Many manufacturers are forced to deal with labor cartels protected by the force of law.
Worth pondering.