[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 100 KB, 224x346, 1580821292808.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16410307 No.16410307 [Reply] [Original]

Politics: Solved

>> No.16410319

OP: Faggot

>> No.16410320

pretty lazy thread desu

>> No.16410329

>>16410320
I’ve seen worse.

>> No.16410338

>>16410320
Refute it

>> No.16410464
File: 51 KB, 413x243, 1568929057418.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16410464

>>16410338
>refute it
>argue with me
>not an argument
>ad hominem
>do you have a source for your claims

>> No.16410469

>>16410307
You can't solve politics without any real metaphysical idealism, i.e. Plato: Politics solved.

>> No.16410472

>>16410307
BTFO by Rawls

>> No.16410480

>>16410469
why

>> No.16410894

>>16410307
nah

>> No.16411362

All jokes aside, it’s good for its thought experiments and thus as a refutation of Rawlsian liberals and SidgwickIan utilitarians, but Nozick can’t systematize for shit and doesn’t really go anywhere after. Like his refutation of Locke is pretty interesting, as he argues that there is something more to value and thus property than labor admixture, but then he just leaves that conclusion hanging.

>> No.16411431

fun fact: this book was featured in sopranos :)

>> No.16411433

>>16411362
His Wilt Chamberlain example is very convincing, and I have yet to see a decent refutation.

>> No.16411440

>>16411431
Kino scene, the terror he experiences when he realizes he may have ratted on Tony

>> No.16411455

>>16411440
Great show, rewatching right now! :D Meadow be hot af

>> No.16411466

>>16411455
Is it something like Colombo? Colombo was good.

>> No.16411472

>>16411466
idk what colombo is

>> No.16411507
File: 164 KB, 1143x720, partylikeits1995.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16411507

>>16411362
How did he refute Rawls?

>> No.16411581

>>16411507
It's been a while since I've read it, but if I remember he argues that the Original Position is theoretically impossible as such a position would necessarily be informed by historical information, and that Rawls's own formulation is itself a product of historical knowledge that says nothing about justice itself.

Then there's the Wilt Chamberlain example where he argues that Rawls's vision is incompatible with liberty, but this is less a refutation and more a differing on first principles. It could be made a refutation if we take "whatever arises from a just situation through just steps is itself just" to the theoretical.

>> No.16411671

>>16411581
Interesting. I don't get this fuss about historical information. It's not like Rawls had forgotten he is a thinker of the 20th century. His idea of basic justice is a result of the abstraction of one's lot in life; and redemptive justice a meliorative mechanism.

>> No.16411686

>>16411455
Finally a patrician like myself. Italian girls make me bust like a madman. Luckily, I went to a catholic school. Unluckily I was an autist sperg.

>> No.16411711

>>16411671
I think Nozick's point is that if one were to genuinely abstract from their historical circumstance, they would not then be capable of making the judgment required by the Original Position. One has to be supplied the requisite information to make that determination, or else on what basis can the determination be made?

Also, Nozick actually endorses redistributive justice insofar as it pertains to wealth disparities produced unjustly.