why is John Rawls the best political philosopher?

[Anonymous No.10943806]

you literally cannot make counter arguments

[Anonymous No.10943817]

hold it right there criminal scum

[Anonymous No.10943822]

>>10943806
b-but m-muh freedumbs

[Anonymous No.10943825]

>be antinatalist behind the veil of ignorance
>create a lifeless world

checkmate j-raw

[Anonymous No.10943885]

>Did someone say best political philosopher?

[Anonymous No.10943888]

>>10943817
Your theory of historical justice is recursive nonsense.

[Anonymous No.10943891]

Politics is not the realm of philosophy

[Anonymous No.10943900]

>>10943806
uhmmm sweatie that would be hobbes

[Anonymous No.10943905]

Stand back, bluepills. The King (as ordained by the board of directors) is here to take his crown.

[Anonymous No.10944038]

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/03/john_rawls_on_e.html

[Anonymous No.10944204]

>>10943891
yes, fortunately political philosophy is in the real,m of philosophy

[Anonymous No.10944206]

>>10943905
Unironically this

When (when!) will M-dog gain mainstream acceptance by the academy

[Anonymous No.10944567]

>>10943900
Hobbes is more of (old-timey) politcal scientist. He wasn't so interested in what would make a good state society, as much as he wanted to explain why state societies and stable hierarchies emerge.

[Anonymous No.10944591]

>>10944206
>acceptance by the cathedral

[Anonymous No.10946352]

A Theory of Justice is just an elaborate hall of mirrors which fails to justify its basic premises and blinds subeducated normies to its gaping holes with specious technical arguments and ridiculous graphs.

Rawls is as popular as he is because he confirms liberal prejudices held by university lecturers, not because he's particularly brilliant. Schmitt and Oakeshott will emerge as the prime thinkers of the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.10946373]

>>10946352
>Oakeshott
this oakeshott?

[Anonymous No.10946406]

>>10946373
Yes, the great Michael Oakeshott!

[Anonymous No.10946423]

>>10943905
>mendacious moldbug

[Anonymous No.10946427]

>>10946373
isn't everybody a Rationalist by the definition this autist is using here? Surely everybody agrees that the ultimate deciding factor is reason, I mean it is impossible to even come to a conclusion without using reason.

[Anonymous No.10946551]

>>10946427
>he's an autist because he isn't as autistic as me!!1

[Anonymous No.10946568]

>>10946551
whatever man, autism all around, isn't what I said true? Regardless of your method of obtaining truth or your perspectives you use reason to justify them, and to carry out their operations.

[Anonymous No.10946606]

>>10946427
I can't necessarily explain to you what is meant by Rationalist, but it isn't just "anyone who reasons".
He writes "he is fortified by a belief in a 'reason' common to all mankind". There are many logics, and even more different ways of thinking.

Somewhat tangential:
"Briefly, you can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it." (Chesterton)
There was another, I forget the exact quote, but it was something along the lines of science taking "facts" for a given, while they're quite mysterious in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10946617]

>>10946606
I like the Chesterton quote and even somewhat agree, but that quote itself is using reason. Just because he's asserting that truth is revealed or comes in some other fashion, does not mean that the truth is not part of a logical operation. It clearly is, it will be connected with other truths, and potentially applied to one's life and verified.

Reason is indispensable to all forms of thought, it basically is the way thought works in the first place.

[Anonymous No.10946622]

>write 500 something page book on liberty, only kinda somewhat define liberty half way through
>You are most remembered for a thought experiment in which you create a government for people that do not and cannot exist
shiggy diggy

[Anonymous No.10946643]

>>10946617
Again, he isn't attacking reasoning, he's attacking rationalists.

[Anonymous No.10946766]

>>10946617
>>10946643
Here's a good example of a "rationalist"
>>10946455

[Anonymous No.10946819]

>>10946373
this is objectively correct
might have to give him a shot

[Anonymous No.10947226]

Undeniably Hayek

No sound critique of liberal capitalism has yet to materialise.

[Anonymous No.10947366]

>>10943806
Imagine that you are a human, but take away everything that makes you human. Now that we've done that, it's fairly straightforward to realize that the best system for such a group of "humans" is Political Liberalism.

[Anonymous No.10947465]

>>10947366
That's an inaccurate description of the veil.

Rawls challenges us to imagine we get to choose, from all the nations of the world, where we are born. What are the values of this nation? Liberal.

Now, we place over ourselves a veil of ignorance, assume again we are to be born, yet this time our destination is down to luck.

Now we clearly see, that things aren't relative, liberalism is the best and we would wish for ourselves to be born to a liberal nation, thus ought wish the world to embrace Liberalism.

[Anonymous No.10947470]

>>10947465
I should qualify, that this means classical Liberalism, not the retarded American Liberalism, which is socialism, a profoundly illiberal philosophy which is indeed diametrically opposed to Liberalism.

[Anonymous No.10947481]

>>10947226
jesus fucking christ, it requires a gigantic tax based bailout system to function and even then it doesn’t care at all about depleting resources or making people miserable

[Anonymous No.10947524]

>>10947481
You just paraphrased Hayek's argument against socialistic Keynesianism...

[Anonymous No.10947528]

>>10947524
He won a nobel prize for that, by the way.

[Anonymous No.10947529]

>>10947470
>American Liberalism, which is socialism

[Anonymous No.10947534]

>>10947529
Yeah, you guys call the radical left "liberals". Retarded.

[Anonymous No.10947538]

>>10947528
>a nobel prize

[Anonymous No.10947540]

>>10943806
But that's not Hobbes.

[Anonymous No.10947543]

>>10943806
No, his theory of justice has been thoroughly btfo'd, though he does do a good job of being wrong as a conclusion of Sandel's criticism is the deontological nature of justice as a biological imperative of the human phenotype.

[Anonymous No.10947545]

>>10947534
>American Liberalism
>radical left

[Anonymous No.10947623]

>>10947465
Unless I want to live in a nation that does not currently exist.

[Anonymous No.10947626]

>>10943905
Why are there no cool far left intellectuals? I just want an ideology that prioritizes voluntary association, filling the world with good art, and an economic system that doesn't make life suck. Zizek is pretty agreeable, but he's not American and he's old as fuck.

[Anonymous No.10947649]

>>10947626
>economics will do good things
it by definition cannot do anything but propagate techno-capital anon, Ted wrote what he did for a specific reason, built into the mechanics of human history is the unfurling of an inhuman intelligence. There is nothing on Easth that could possibly stop it from killing all of us, hopefully quickly, but regardless inevitably. Land and Ted are two poles of the same one true final truth, we’re just food for something less interesting but infinitely more rappacious.

[Anonymous No.10947657]

>>10947465
You'd only think that "behind the veil" because of a bunch of arbitrary assumptions you're making. My friends in Saudi Arabia would say something totally different, a snail would want something completely alien to you. You're just justifying what you already believe by running your dick through a bunch of self-serving hoops you set up with your mind which is fundamentally just a machine doing what it can to preserve itself in a particular environment. These hypothetical models are a waste of time, in the real world it would just make sense to let everyone freely associate among each other so that everyone who agrees lives by the same laws. The only people interested in doing otherwise are a authoritarian fuck-heads who want to impose their shit on people who don't agree with them. We have the internet and all this shit, why can't we just fuck off from one another?

[Anonymous No.10947736]

>>10947540

[Anonymous No.10947755]

>>10947736

[Anonymous No.10948947]

>>10947465
That's not true with the assumption nor is the assumption justified.

[Anonymous No.10948962]

>>10947465
But I'd wish for communism...

[Anonymous No.10948966]

>>10943806
>Rawls's theory of "justice as fairness" recommends equal basic rights, equality of opportunity, and promoting the interests of the least advantaged members of society.
Is this what his philosophy is? Truly a god among intellectuals

[Anonymous No.10948978]

>>10947540
He specifically listed a name with the picture, that sarcastic joke meme doesn’t work.

It’s like if I posted a picture of Emily and then you said ‘But that’s not Eric’, like no shit retard hahaah

[Anonymous No.10948992]

>>10944567
What should I read if I want to know more about formation of society?

[Anonymous No.10948999]

>>10948966
watch out for those edges kid

[Anonymous No.10949007]

>>10948999
>it's edgy to not be of a political persuasian that has only been popular for a small period of time in a particular corner of the world

[Anonymous No.10949358]

>>10944567
If you really think Hobbes was trying to give an historical account of "why state societies and stable hierarchies emerge", you really need to study Hobbes some more.

[Anonymous No.10949401]

>>10946606
>There are many logics
No.

[Anonymous No.10949443]

>>10949401

[Anonymous No.10949482]

>>10948966
it's in bad faith to quote the wikipedia introduction to his biography present it as "his philosophy."

The idea he is remembered for is the "veil of ignorance" which would be the "original position" from which we would decide the laws of our society. He argues such a system would result a kind of classically liberal utopia:
"No one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance."

You don't have to agree with it, but I want other anons to know that he had more original and unique ideas than you present him as having.

[Anonymous No.10949635]

>>10947649
Ted was insane. It is possible to create a society that positively impacts everyone through a managed economy. You can apply Keynesianism conservatively, you can do whatever the fuck you want.

But the free marketists are verifiably retarded unless there is no reason for government to function, but as it stands, no matter how you organize the financial institutions there will be situations where the interest rate needs to be controlled (I.e. naturally goes up) and even situations where trusts develoP. In fact, it has been shown time and time again that trusts develop even UNDER regulation, lord knows how close to the tangency of production curves the exchange curve for the individuals will go. You will largely have extremely large price inefficiencies for everyone in the economy.

Stop reading Austrian nonsense, that’s my suggestion. If you’re too dumb to comprehend how the Employment multiplier works, then maybe you should stick to philosophy, but not the kind with any equations, we don’t want you analyzing anything

[Anonymous No.10949756]

>>10947524
>socialistic Keynesianism

[Anonymous No.10950754]

>>10943806
I admit that I like some of his ideas, but saying that you cannot make counter arguments is just stupid.
I googled "arguments against Rawls" and got 478.000 results.
I must admit that he is one of the best "Single idea" philosopher we've ever had and that we need more of those.

[Anonymous No.10951003]

>>10947657
>wah wah wah i'm too retarded for actual philosophy here is my sophomoric analysis of why it's all bullshit

Do you even know where you're posting right now? Why do you feel the need to prevent people from talking about things that interest them? Things that people have obviously put a lot more thought into than you ever have or ever will?

[Anonymous No.10951026]

>>10946373
I never trust authors who italicize so liberally. It's an unforgivable tic.

[Anonymous No.10951030]

>>10947226
This

[Anonymous No.10951033]

>>10951026
I don't trust Italians either, they're a bunch of Arabs if you ask me

[Anonymous No.10951040]

>>10951003
not him, but why not apply a veil of special ignorance too? obviously we should treat other animals equally because of this principle
also it's impossible that people might accept a lower standing for the good of a society

[Anonymous No.10951232]

>>10943806
John Rawls is not only not the best political philosopher - he's not even a political philosopher at all. His judgements about justice are moral philosophy not political philosophy. Also, his moral philosophy is fundamentally wrong.

[Anonymous No.10952152]

Peter Sjöstedt-H had a fine counter argument against him.

[Anonymous No.10952308]

>>10943806
how do i into rawls

[Anonymous No.10952466]

>>10951003
>Rawls challenges us to imagine we get to choose, from all the nations of the world, where we are born. What are the values of this nation? Liberal.
lol this is complete bullshit and a waste of time

>hurr if i could have anything I wanted this would be my preference
>this proves my preferences are the best