« Attack ads on philosophers | Main | Moral Philosophy 101 »

December 14, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.



My own reading of Quine (not the approved version, perhaps) leads me to believe, one, his naturalism can be used by about anyone to further their ends, whether links oder rechts. And two, WVOQ was not really a logicist as was Frege (or Russell). Yes, OK, he may be a great logician, but his thinking follows from Pierce and James and the "experimental" philosophy. As Two Dogmas shows, his ideas of logic are synthetic a posteriori: thus logical form itself would be contingent according to that view. PoMos may not be completely mistaken in regards to their distaste for Quine's apolitical reductionism, but if Heidegger's the alternative, well, who cares.

I hold that John Rawls started something nearly legitimate with TOJ: a type of social philosophy which would draw on economics, political theory, and perhaps some "green" ideas, along with the ethics blather (Gewirth also did this to some degree). Rawls' methods and arguments are more daunting than they might seem initially.

The marxist/pomo dogmatists of course dismiss Rawls as neo-liberal or something (Zizek said something like, how does Rawls account for sadistic impulses, etc.); analytical people if they read Rawls at all, simply say not necessary, or provable or something--yet I contend Rawls' contract theory, while perhaps not "tautologous", holds about as well as say Hobbes's naturalistic contract theory does. In ways TOJ reads sort of like what a Galbraith might have done in ethics/pol-phil. TOJ is like an updating of Hobbes' Leviathan--not the worse thing a filosophe could do.

The comments to this entry are closed.