Your own decision, read by the documented methods of two to four thinkers.
2 credits·in-depth·about 2–4 min·12 domains
Describe the decision you face. Pick two to four thinkers from the roster and a mode: a bench that reads it and shows where the methods part, a debate with one round of replies and a close written to rules, or a pre-mortem that takes the decision as made and looks back from a year later. Each reading names the idea it rests on, and the council lists what it took on your word and what it would verify before deciding.
Anyone facing a decision that deserves more than one way of thinking about it.
These are the headings the result renders, read from the same promise the form makes before you spend a credit. A section that depends on what the record holds is rendered when it can be and never promised here.
A council is modeled from each thinker's writings and teachings; it is an interpretation, never their words, and it never claims what a thinker would have supported. It issues no verdict and no vote, and it introduces no outside fact: the decision is read on what you told it.
A claim the scan could not source is marked as such rather than dressed up. How the grades work →
A domain may name it in its own words and price it on its own terms; each row is what that domain shows.
No Council has been published to the public library yet. Browse what has →
The fastest way to judge the result is to pick a subject you know cold and read it against what you know. The scan names its credit cost before it runs.