For those who feel like reading yet another underinformed and ultimately useless pop piece on the brilliant John Rawls.... check it. The author is interested in recent attempts by Hayekian libertarians to avail themselves of Rawls's ideas. He calls them "Rawlsekians." How cute.
There are several glaring failures in this piece. Notice especially that the author grossly misunderstands the public reason doctrine. Furthermore, the author claims early in the essay that libertarians are attracted to Rawls because they believe that some libertarian principle would be chosen in the Original Position, but then the author claims that libertarian interest in Rawls is due to the "inherent vagueness of the difference principle." Go figure.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Never trust anyone who is affiliated with an "Institute" or the like. Say what one will about the academy, if this is the other option, well .. .
For people supposedly interested reasonable debate, your comments are troubling.
First, the article is a piece of journalism covering a recent movement in political philosophy. The move of the "Rawlsekians" is a classic one in any philosophic discipline, called "turning an argument on its head". One take a particular system or argument, follows its logic to what are ultimately surprising conclusions, and shows hows those conclusions support a position opposite the one initially intended.
Second, for Rawls, unlike feminist philosophers of science (Harding Longino), public reason recasts common sense into liberal terms. It represents those bare bones necessary, conditions for achieving a life of liberty.
Third, I think the accusation that people in DC think tanks should never be trusted is way too far. Those groups simply represent a political position. It is necessary for a democracy to function that opposing ideologies have expert staffs to duke it out. The increase of think tanks illustrating the grand discrepancies in the American belief system is the only hope of stopping tyrants, authoritarians, and radicals from obtaining office in Washington. Do not disregard Institute positions, explain what is wrong with them.
What's wrong with them? You said it-- they are interested in "ideologies" rather than ideas.
Huh? This is absolutely ridiculous.
Anon. @ 10:37 is quite right. Legitimate academics are engaged in the disinterested inquiry into truth, whereas the employees of think-tanks are engaged in the partisan inquiry into justification for their ideology, regardless of the truth. And since think-tanks are expensive, their ideology always promotes the interests of one or another segment of the tiny minority of rich people who run this country. The interests of that tiny minority are not consistent with—are in most circumstances opposed to—the interests of the majority population. So not only are they partisan hacks, but they’re partisan hacks who are always and inevitably evil.
Also, a society in which only a tiny minority of rich people have any real power is already authoritarian. It’s called plutocracy, not “democracy.”
Why Rawls even gets noticed outside the academy is beyond me. Only Michael Dummett is worse writer.
Damn. Clearly I meant "... a worse writer."
Clearly it's contagious.
There's more discussion of the Gordon piece on Rawls (for the...interested): HereThe author considers the piece "smart and lucid" and also points out an inconsistency and Gordon replies.
Anon @ 5:18 writes:
***
Why Rawls even gets noticed outside the academy is beyond me. Only Michael Dummett is worse writer.
***
Maybe he gets noticed because some people outside of the academy realize that the value of elegant prose style does not trump that of having powerful ideas. And, btw, I couldn't disagree with you more about the quality of Rawls's writing. He is in my view among the clearest ever.
Roger,
I don't know whether you're responding to me or Anon 11:58 (or both). Your third point is clearly directed to Anon. But perhaps not the other two.
First: I thank you for pointin out that the magazine article is a "piece of journalism covering a recent movement in political philosophy." Yeah... gee... I missed that. And the lesson about the classic move of accepting an opponent's premises and then deriving one's own conclusion comes as a real insight to me. I never thought of that. I have so much to learn from you!
Too bad nothing I said in criticizing the article can plausibly be read as a denial that the piece is journalism or a rejection of the very thought of using one's opponent's premises against him. Do yourself a favor: don't waste you time writing on this blog as if you're talking to a classroom of Intro students. I'm not your pupil, and you've already shown that your read about as carefully as they do.
Second: Your gloss on the public reason doctrine is wildly off the mark. PR has nothing to do with recasting "common sense" and does not seek to enable "achieving a life of liberty." The doctrine is concerned with the justification of political coercion. And if it could be summed up in a sentence or two (yours or the author of the article's), it wouldn't be worth bothering with. Again, you're in no position to pose as my teacher. Save it for your students, who, if your post is any indication, are very unfortunate.
Spiros, your condescension is duly noted both in the initial blog and response. As you note, these are deep philosophical and political issues and require more than a sentence; both to explain and critique. You would do well to blog responsibly to affirm your claim (i.e., generating debate) rather than construct forums for cynicism towards ideology; also to criticize the prescriptive acts of the piece rather than the authors interpretations. For the latter, join a hermeneutic group where you can bathe in the posturing of quasi-intellectuals.
Roger,
I see that you take it to be "condescension" when I refuse to be spoken to as a subordinate. I'll repeat: you're not my teacher. And your posts suggest that you're not *capable* of being my teacher-- you've proven to be a careless reader and thinker, and you don't know what you're talking about.
For example, you insist (for a second time!) that I claim that my purpose on this blog is to "generate debate" (or "reasonable debate"). Nowhere is this claim made in these pages. In fact, given what is claimed in the description of this blog, it should be clear that this is *not* a forum for reasonable debate at all.
The original post to which you responded so incompetently was not posed as an argument demonstrating the failings of the Rawlsekians piece. It was instead a complaint about the piece's failings (with a hit as to what I take its main failings to be). If you want serious analysis, read an academic journal. That you expect serious analysis from a blog as overtly ad self-avowedly ridiculous as this one shows, again, that you're in no position to pose as my teacher.
Please, stop embarrassing yourself.
A fabulous gift idea that any mom & grandma links of london sale would be glad to accept is a mother's ring. There are countless styles to pick from london links charms and every one permits each of a mother's children's birthstone to be placed in the ring so mom & grandma can remember her children wherever she goes.Jewelry links london bracelet that is personalized or engraved makes great jewelry gifts for mom. You can have a particular word or meaningful expression engraved inside a ring, necklace or bracelet links of london earrings to demonstrate to your mother the depths of your feelings.Stylish watches are an additional idea for great jewelry gifts for mom. Your mother sweetie bracelet needs a stylish watch to go with her favorite outfit and perhaps even a few to go with her entire wardrobe.Another example of mom's & grandma's jewelry that makes a great gift is mother's earrings.
I think you're a brilliant man. Most of the people are thinking in those "libertarians" ideas, and they can't refuse the content neither, because as you really know, he was an American philosopher and a leading figure in moral and political philosophy. j23j
Have was clever guy, until he suffered a mental disease the past year. what a waste of talent.
I would like to read more about this topic to write a review. Keep up the good work and keep posting.
It is really beneficial. That is very good post you shared. and thanks for sharing this most important information.
Post a Comment