My ungenerous guess is that the reason for Rawls' success is that he was offering arguments for things that many academic philosophers wanted to believe. My view, subject to someone showing me that his argument is more defensible than it appears to be, is that that is evidence against modern political philosophy deserving to be taken ser…
My ungenerous guess is that the reason for Rawls' success is that he was offering arguments for things that many academic philosophers wanted to believe. My view, subject to someone showing me that his argument is more defensible than it appears to be, is that that is evidence against modern political philosophy deserving to be taken seriously.
I never got any substantive response from the BHL people on the Rawls issue, still don't know if they agree that his argument is nonsense but are unwilling to say so or really believe, correctly or otherwise, that it is defensible if not correct.
My ungenerous guess is that the reason for Rawls' success is that he was offering arguments for things that many academic philosophers wanted to believe. My view, subject to someone showing me that his argument is more defensible than it appears to be, is that that is evidence against modern political philosophy deserving to be taken seriously.
I never got any substantive response from the BHL people on the Rawls issue, still don't know if they agree that his argument is nonsense but are unwilling to say so or really believe, correctly or otherwise, that it is defensible if not correct.