La natura umana. Giustizia contro potere

The back-and-forth format makes complex ideas more accessible, but I wonder if it also risks oversimplifying their arguments. What do you think was the goal behind this structure?

Their contrasting views on human nature and knowledge really made me think about how much our perspectives shape our understanding of society. Was this tension intentional or a product of their personalities?

Given the developments in psychology and neuroscience, I’m curious whether the ideas still hold or if they feel outdated now. Has anyone found new insights connecting to these arguments?