Alt Text
Show parent replies
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
as in like, here are my stipulated definitions that hang together in a certain way but not going too extremely in depth on any of them. its not *that* far afield from similar works, just a little more intense in degree
i suppose i'd be less perturbed if i shared more of his intuitions
"every moral and every political theory which claims either that it is a complete theory, or even merely that it is complete regarding some issue, contains a principle of equality in this sense.
that is, it contains a closure principle stating that nothing else counts for the justification of moral or political action, or for action over education, etc. closure principles of this kind cannot therefore lend an egalitarian character to a theory."
its funny, as an anti-egalitarian i see the knots he's coming up against and have the impulse to take the exact opposite tack
im being a little flippant, i think hes actually making good ground, and i like that he draws attention to the deficiencies of naive and narrow forms. that being said, i don't think it can mangle itself into something viable
i see raz as largely clarifying men's (!!!) ideas as to the social and moral strifes of their own day
the discussion of the rhetorical uses of equality are good :)
"to the extent that one's ultimate goals tend, as they do, also to be one's most comprehensive goals it follows that in many cases one has no decisive reason for the goals one has which are independent of the face that one has them"
im digging the contextualism in the discussion of social forms