/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16135268]

*solves politics*

[Anonymous No.16135277]

who's this?

[Anonymous No.16135290]

duder could make bank charging spectacle rides

[Anonymous No.16135308]

>>16135277
Rawls

[Anonymous No.16135315]

>>16135290
what's the point in spamming that picture?

[Anonymous No.16135335]

>>16135315
>Pegged this hard
no salve under heaven for that gaping bum

[Anonymous No.16135341]

>>16135335
who's peg, she looks cute.

[Anonymous No.16135370]

>>16135268
This guy never even scratched the surface of politics. Just boring legislation. Schmitt and even Arendt have a lot more to offer.

[Anonymous No.16135478]

The entire concept of the veil of ignorance makes no sense to me. How you think resources should be distributed in society cannot be examined in a vacuum completely agnostic of ideas of justice. What position i take in society depends heavily on my ideas of equality and natural order: if i thought that a certain race was superior to another i would choose a position differently, or if i held ideas of the causal role of class conflict it would priorities certain orderings. What does it mean to make such a decision on just distribution without theories of justice? It's incoherent. Rawls rigs the game from the start by stripping man in society of everything that constitutes man and society (prestablished values, customs, cultures, and ideologies) down to the liberal ideal of the self-interested economic agent— the homo economicus— who acts only in perfect self interest. Yet he doesn't even stop to consider whether this is a product of these very prestablishe values, customs, cultures, or ideologies. And then he claims that justice is what self-interested utility maximisers would do. I mean, fuck, do we have to go back to Aristotle's presentation of self-interested vs communally interested—that is, degenerate vs ideal—political forms to educate these cunts on politics? There are no perfect markets without externalites, there are no Pareto optimal decisions: we have to compromise in the image of our societies conception of justice, which exist verum factum not as some natural order. The impartial observer doesn't exist, hasn't the theory dependence of observation taught this already? I mean, the veil of ignorance can be interesting from a public choice and game theory perspective, demonstrating how perfectly self-interested people will still make social concessions. But it's meaningless as any substantial political perspective. Politics is ethics; ethics is axiomatic; reasoning cannot be made without axioms; the veil of ignorance cannot produce reasoned decisions.
All Rawls really demonstrated is how deeply ideology influences one's conception of the world—that you think such a way of reasoning to be a universal axiom that applies even in the light of no preconceived ideology. That is, you don't even realise your ideology as ideology. That's an essential and indispensable property of ideology, a very healthy part of it, but philosophers should rise above it.
Thanks for reviving political philosophy Rawls, you did say some interesting stuff, but your theory really needs to die already.

[Anonymous No.16135482]

>>16135308
Btfo by Aristotle
Next

[Anonymous No.16135985]

>dood liberal democracy is the best because if a bunch of guys had to design a society under a veil of ignorance then that's what they are gonna come up because I sure as heck can't imagine someone would do otherwise