Alt Text
Show parent replies
in some ways my proposed defense of the traditional belief in the value of freedom is based on a radical departure from some historically central liberal doctrines."
i just have such a soft spot in my heart for people who throw away all of the intellectual scaffolding that would regularly arrive at their conclusions
good analysis that authority is not merely defacto authority, there is some normative justificatory core to the concept, whether or not that project succeeds is a separate question
this discussion of love is unexpected but not unwelcome, the connection to inspirational models of authority is clever
"the case for the validity of a claim to authority must include justificatory considerations sufficient to outweigh counter-reasons. that is one reason why the case is hard to make.
but if anarchists are right to think that it can never be made, this is for contingent reasons and not because of any inconsistency in the notion of a rational justification for authority, nor in the notion of authority over moral agents"
for my brand of anarchism this is no real objection at all because thats not the kind of claim against authority i make, but for philosophical anarchism (a la robert paul wolff) it is a more pressing issue. i think it probably doesn't take the deontic considerations clearly enough
on their own terms and would require more elaboration, but i'm not too bothered about it since its mostly in passing and furnishes his view nicely
"One also has to take notice of the disadvantages to one's life of too obsessive a preoccupation with questions of the precise limits of authority." WE LOVE A GRILL PILLED QUEEN
i think i might take break tonight heading into anti-perfectionism. i'm not at ease with the consent sections but i'm withholding judgement to see what he can do with his conception
the taken-for-granted patriarchy really gives the game away
enzo was right that legal scholars are putting up way more numbers than philosophers
dude i love that this feels like vibe-philosophizing but with rigor
like for most people there are like sacred things you HAVE to hold onto in order to make their shit work. but hes just like "yea im gonna adopt this principle and here are some reasons why i think it works, but whatever, if we disagree it's unlikely to affect the validity of the argument"
does it make sense to call this book dense but shallow? like we're doing a drive-by of the top concepts and hitting all the points, we're covering a lot of ground, but not developing much. which was intentional and stated up front, but i'm not sure how well it works overall