John Rawls is one of my most requested thinkers. A few points that seem pertinent to me both within his thinking and particular in the way his thought has influenced other thinkers.
I am absolutely shocked once again listening to you, Professor Wes Cecil. This was another great lecture. I am thankful also you brought up Foucault for a breif moment. I find him fascinating although others have be highly critical of me. I am just a beginner in philosophical insights and arguments. I am humbly at my own device's of learning as much as I can, that is the way I was built with elasticity at my beck and call. Respectfully as always to listen to your wider grip on reality, I thank you.
Really an excellent intro to Rawls--I say that even though I've only heard ABOUT him, and have not read him; don't have a single paperback BY him. All I know is that Allan Bloom did a review, decades ago, of Rawls's "Theory of Justice." Bloom, of course, one of THE great students of Leo Strauss, whose name continues to crop up, (cf. some recent "First Things") as a reliable conservative voice AGAINST liberalism. Michael Millerman uses him (along with Dugin), to argue that liberalism is not quite the alpha and omega that our teachers wanted us to believe in. That, in fact, it's a big world out there--I loved your discussion of the 5000 years of Chinese history--and that we Westerners tend to be a bit narrow-minded, in comparison.
Always love to hear your insights, so clearly articulated! This brings to mind Emerson's, "Life is a journey, not a destination." Joy in being, doing, and progressing, instead of looking a final answer or perfection. A few days ago, I was thinking about this in terms of free will (the ability to do other than respond instinctively/biologically) and evolution. Is free will an evolutionary error, or a 'keeper' of an experiment? If we choose wisely, we will survive; if not, we will be extinct, just as so many failed or destroyed species have been. It's a bit daunting to know that we - collectively - have the reins, yet so little is actually within our control. Enjoy!
I think, for a lot of the questions that you're raising, Rawls's method of attempting to tackle them was the Veil of Ignorance, right? As in, it's a sort of enforced examination of biases such that the "reasonable" & "rational" would put themselves in the shoes of different minority/majority groups and attempt to fashion laws that can be universally agreed upon. It feels like a sort of update of Kant's deontology. Whether or not, it's actually possible to fashion any significant number of laws above very, very basic principles (e.g. "Do no harm") is a different question, I think. I don't know that most laws would necessarily exist in that sort of utopian (libertarian?) society.
A very enjoyable lecture. Hadn’t heard much about John Rawls. Seems like another guy trying to write THE quintessential modern “Utopia”. I’m starting the think that a zoologist with a specialty in chimpanzees would be better at it and I don’t think Rawls would entirely disagree with that statement. Though I doubt I’d be his “rational citizen” either. Which I think was a point in this lecture. Again, thank you.
There’s “reasonable” and “rational”, but then you need these individuals to be “willing”. The trick is managing against self-interests, and I also don’t see that happening. Love working towards it though, I think.
This can be applied to any idea aiming toward a homogenous society with stringent requirements and uniformity. Diversity, open-mindedness, and an eye on a dynamic way of life are the keys to successful societies and civilizations. We may agree to disagree on the particulars but there is no fighting the fact that we’re all in our own little slice of reality but also need to be cognizant of one another and our different needs and goals. “We’re in this together.”
I am absolutely shocked once again listening to you, Professor Wes Cecil.
This was another great lecture.
I am thankful also you brought up Foucault for a breif moment. I find him fascinating although others have be highly critical of me. I am just a beginner in philosophical insights and arguments.
I am humbly at my own device's of learning as much as I can, that is the way I was built with elasticity at my beck and call.
Respectfully as always to listen to your wider grip on reality, I thank you.
Thank you so much for your work and wisdom!🦋🕊🦋🌹
As always, thank you very much for sharing your insights!
Thank you so much
First, thank you for your gifts Wes.
Goood evening comment section
Really an excellent intro to Rawls--I say that even though I've only heard ABOUT him, and have not read him; don't have a single paperback BY him. All I know is that Allan Bloom did a review, decades ago, of Rawls's "Theory of Justice." Bloom, of course, one of THE great students of Leo Strauss, whose name continues to crop up, (cf. some recent "First Things") as a reliable conservative voice AGAINST liberalism. Michael Millerman uses him (along with Dugin), to argue that liberalism is not quite the alpha and omega that our teachers wanted us to believe in. That, in fact, it's a big world out there--I loved your discussion of the 5000 years of Chinese history--and that we Westerners tend to be a bit narrow-minded, in comparison.
This was interesting and gave me more stuff to google. Thanks for sharing
Thank you for the video. I enjoyed it very much
Always love to hear your insights, so clearly articulated! This brings to mind Emerson's, "Life is a journey, not a destination." Joy in being, doing, and progressing, instead of looking a final answer or perfection. A few days ago, I was thinking about this in terms of free will (the ability to do other than respond instinctively/biologically) and evolution. Is free will an evolutionary error, or a 'keeper' of an experiment? If we choose wisely, we will survive; if not, we will be extinct, just as so many failed or destroyed species have been. It's a bit daunting to know that we - collectively - have the reins, yet so little is actually within our control. Enjoy!
I think, for a lot of the questions that you're raising, Rawls's method of attempting to tackle them was the Veil of Ignorance, right? As in, it's a sort of enforced examination of biases such that the "reasonable" & "rational" would put themselves in the shoes of different minority/majority groups and attempt to fashion laws that can be universally agreed upon. It feels like a sort of update of Kant's deontology. Whether or not, it's actually possible to fashion any significant number of laws above very, very basic principles (e.g. "Do no harm") is a different question, I think. I don't know that most laws would necessarily exist in that sort of utopian (libertarian?) society.
A very enjoyable lecture. Hadn’t heard much about John Rawls. Seems like another guy trying to write THE quintessential modern “Utopia”. I’m starting the think that a zoologist with a specialty in chimpanzees would be better at it and I don’t think Rawls would entirely disagree with that statement. Though I doubt I’d be his “rational citizen” either. Which I think was a point in this lecture. Again, thank you.
There’s “reasonable” and “rational”, but then you need these individuals to be “willing”. The trick is managing against self-interests, and I also don’t see that happening. Love working towards it though, I think.
This can be applied to any idea aiming toward a homogenous society with stringent requirements and uniformity. Diversity, open-mindedness, and an eye on a dynamic way of life are the keys to successful societies and civilizations. We may agree to disagree on the particulars but there is no fighting the fact that we’re all in our own little slice of reality but also need to be cognizant of one another and our different needs and goals. “We’re in this together.”
Please do Foucault next Professor!
Rawls, is neither art nor artifice but Sentimentaltotalitarianism.