That's it lads, I got it right.
>>1063787
Literally the cuck for which Zizek came up with the dusty balls of capitalism joke.
>>1064059
What joke?
>>1064211
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80X0pbCV_t4
How to succeed in liebral academia:
1. say nothing new but say it in more pretentious ways
2. repeat yourself as much as possible
3. ???????
4. tenure
>>1064219
Truth as it may be, Rawls' ToJ was pretty ground breaking for its era.
>>1064218
Wtf is this shit
>>1064232
Postmodern philosophy my man
The Philosophy of ethics is such a waste of time. Even compared to other shitty areas of Philosophy.
Can never understand how you can be so bright to be a professor but find that bullshit interesting. "Durr if you had two bullets and there were three hitlers which two hitlers would you kill" holy fuck who cares, go study what your fucking mind is
>>1064240
Rawls actually had some non-trivial influence on public policy, especially on certain areas of jurisprudence.
But nice post.
>>1063787
Looks like Clint Eastwood.
>>1064211
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEnkDEgALGI
>>1064252
>non-trivial
Have you studied mathematics? Cooool
>le ebin materialist equality man
>>1064219
5. invent new words and entirely new language that people have to learn in order to understand wtf you are trying to say
>>1064219
Rawls is far from what you consider liberal academia. He was a philosopher brought up in the analytic tradition. Read some passages in ToJ, it's an extremely rigorous book.
>>1064240
It's not ethics, its political philosophy. If you find Rousseau, Hobbes and such boring then ok.
>>1064252
He also had alot of influence on economics. He is easily the most important political philsopher in the 20th century.
>>1065157
>Read some passages in ToJ, it's an extremely rigorous book.
It presents itself as one. Read what he has to say about primary social goods and tell me there's any real rigor in ToJ. He just throws out platitudes about democracy values. The difference principle is supported by one of the worst arguments to become famous in the history of philosophy, that is, the Veil of Ignorance, a pointless thought experiment that proves nothing at all.
>>1065200
Of course he throws out democratic values; ToJ is basically a theory that justifies social democracy. This doesn't mean that they are just random.
Anyway, why do you think the veil of ignorance is the worst thought experiment? I always found it hard to argue against it.
>>1063787
Sure m8
the veil of ignorance is just the rerun of kant's categorical imperative
>>1064059
LE KEK XDDD
>>1063787
>sophist cuckery
bergtarians and the far left are the only competent political philosophers.
Normie politics just isn't about theory
>>1065304
I didn't call them "random."
Why do you find the VoI compelling? The VoI itself isn't something he argues for, he uses it to argue for the difference principle. I've just never found a good reason to think that either 1) people in the Veil of Ignorance have anything at all in common with the people who are actually in positions to found societies, and that this is too much of a gap to base policy on (as has been done by Rawlsians), and 2) I see no reason to think that people behind the VoI would choose to organize society according to the difference principle, and not according to welfare egalitarianism, or political-economic desertism, to name a couple positions. Maybe you can convince me.
At the end of the day, I find analytic social and political philosophy to be dull. I think this is a problem because society and politics are not the cut and dry, boring platitudes steeped in big words that Rawls uses to make his arguments.
The difference principle, the thing Rawls is advocating, is also not well supported by the argument involving the VoI.
>>1064366
What?
I swear the shitposting on /his/ becomes less and less coherent with every passing week.
>>1065322
I love Nozick and I'm probably closer to him ideologically than to Rawls, but you have to admit his retaliation to Rawls takes the form of begging the question rather than direct refutation. In the end, what Nozick offers is pseudo-contractualist variation on the theme of natural rights; assuming a naturalist language is entirely at odds with Rawl's conception of rationality, and as such doesn't really respond to his core arguments.
In other words, Rawls is telling us what's the best way to peel a banana, while Nozick answers with "apples are tastier anyway".
>>1066017
That doesn't look like an argument
>>1066051
Have you read AS&U?
>>1066017
The guy you are responding to here. To be honest I haven't directly read either, only read a bit about them in the Oxford introduction to political philosophy. That's a great way to explain the two. I did find myself aligning ideologically somewhat closer to Nozick too. Is AS&U worth reading for a layman?
>>1066716
Not who you are responding to, but I know a good deal about Nozick. I would say AS&U is definitely worth it to read. And if you don't want to read the whole thing, you could probably skip chapters 4-6. Chapter 7, Distributive Justice, I think it the most important chapter, so read that if you're really pressed for time.
Nozick essentially argues for libertarianism or the "minimal state" in AS&U. So I would definitely say it's worth reading as a layman, be that because you want to argue against libertarians or you are one and you'd like to hear libertarian arguments.
Definitely check it out.
>>1066792
I'd say I'm in the middle ground between libertarianism and a large state. Kimda the government provides a decent minimum of opportunity/positive rights and provides goods which markets undersupply while otherwise letting people enjoy their negative rights. Any books exploring these views? I'll definitely look at AS&U
>>1066842
How can the market ever undersupply anything? Isn't supply defined by quantities on the market?
>>1066863
The difference between private and social costs/benefits.normal markets can also oversupply things, when ever a trade between two individuals has an adverse effect on a 3rd party.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
>>1066842
I am not sure if I understand your views, so I can't really suggest you a book. There are only a finite number of worthwhile political philosophers though.
Hobbes
Locke
Rousseau
Hume
Mill
Marx
Gauthier
Rawls
Nozick
Pateman (Sorta)
Mills (Sorta)
Waltzer (Sorta)
I suggest checking out what each of these philosophers are about and then reading their most famous works.
>>1066989
Thanks!
>>1066842
>>I'd say I'm in the middle ground between libertarianism and a large state.
yes, like most people who want free stuff but do not wish to pay the goods as much as the next guy.
these philosophers always fail to motivate their stance about imposing their views on other.
Teachers of Philosophy today are little worms dumping their fantasies and hoping that somebody will pay them to continue to fantasize.
>>1063787
>mfw
>>1066716
Not the guy etc. AS&U is a lot more readable than ToJ, but I would still advise a selective reading of the core chapters like the other guy said, and maybe even some introductory material (the Oxford thing sounds good). Also don't skip the introduction as it's pretty important and helps to illuminate the main argument.
HAVING SAID THAT, Hayek is better :^)
