Alt Text
Show parent replies
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"