I liked his goal of trying to reconcile the differences between liberals and conservatives. However I disagreed with him when he quoted Sent-ts'an and said that we must stop being "for" or "against" so that the truth can be clear. To me that philosophy self destructs. What is truth? What is morality? How can you have such concepts without being "for" some things and "against" others? It was almost as if he was saying that if we are to reach agreement on what is moral, we must eliminate "right" (for) and "wrong" (against). But if "right" and "wrong" disappear, then our goal reaching moral agreement becomes moot. He takes a very relativistic approach to morality, and in my opinion, morality ceases to make sense under such a worldview. That doesn't mean that this guy is immoral or amoral because of his beliefs. I just disagree with his theory. He was very interesting though, and I am glad that he is searching for solutions to problems like these.
