Reading Rawls
From the thread about lying about books you’ve read comes a question about books I have read:
Also, any suggestions on books by or on Rawls?
In terms of book by Rawls, the trouble is that while A Theory of Justice and Political Liberalism are both great books, neither is really what I’d call a good book. They’re not fun to read and they’re not short. But if you want to read Rawls, they’re the books you have to read. There’s also Justice as Fairness: A Restatement which is short and tries to synthesize the two works.
This kind of thing, incidentally, is one reason why I’m glad I majored in philosophy in college. Other things I’m interested in, like history, I find it’s pretty feasible to learn about on my own by trying to ask people for suggestions on good books to read and so forth. But a lot of key philosophical writings are things I would find it extremely difficult to get through without teachers. The good news on the Rawls front, though, is that these days people can check out Samuel Freeman’s Rawls which is a book-length explication and defense of Rawls’ work. It came highly recommended to me, and it’s definitely what the doctor ordered. It’s not an easy read by any means, but it’s a clear presentation of the ideas and the general consensus is that it’s the best introduction to the subject available.
29 Responses to “Reading Rawls”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 15th, 2008 at 8:57 am
“But a lot of key philosophical writings are things I would find it extremely difficult to get through without teachers.”
for “philosophical”, substitute “mathematical”, or “chemical”, or whatever you personally find extremely difficult on your own, and this is one good way to choose a major in college.
if you want to become a well-rounded person, that is.
if you want to become an expert in your area and turn your degree into employment, then it may be better to major in what you find extremely non-difficult.
(not that majoring in what you find easy will guarantee you a job–hello, english majors!–but that you are less likely to be able to play at a professional level if you found the college leagues extremely difficult).
December 15th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Other things I’m interested in, like history, I find it’s pretty feasible to learn about on my own by trying to ask people for suggestions on good books to read and so forth.
Do you have any strong recommendations or places to find a good list of history books?
December 15th, 2008 at 9:50 am
So you read these, or you didn’t?
December 15th, 2008 at 9:57 am
I suspect your Rawls-admiration is — at least in part — an artifact of majoring in philosophy at Harvard. Sort of like thinking the burgers at Bartley’s are the best in the world, when in fact they’re kind of ordinary, once you think about it.
Somehow, the wider community of Harvard philosophers — including students like Freeman — has decided that the big, obvious problems with Rawls’s view (cf. Harsanyi’s review of ToJ) don’t really matter. That’s their right, of course, but it has always seemed parochial to me. Like deciding that Bellichek’s cheating doesn’t undercut the awesomeness of the Patriots.
All power to you if you’re a Rawls fan, of course. But I think it’s the philosophical analogue to wearing a Harvard sweatshirt.
December 15th, 2008 at 10:01 am
I guess what bugs me in that last post is looking for credit for being honest when what you’re being honest about is lying, and trying to score points for being self-deprecating when the people you’re deprecating are the people who actually read and love books.
December 15th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Like deciding that Bellichek’s cheating doesn’t undercut the awesomeness of the Patriots.
It doesn’t.
Also, Freddie, let it go man. You’re becoming Petey-esque
December 15th, 2008 at 10:14 am
I suspect your Rawls-admiration is — at least in part — an artifact of majoring in philosophy at Harvard. Sort of like thinking the burgers at Bartley’s are the best in the world, when in fact they’re kind of ordinary, once you think about it.
You’re right about Bartleys — good burgers in the sense that if you want a burger near Harvard Yard, Bartleys is the place to go, but not extraordinarily good or anything.
I think you’ll find that Rawls is considered the major figure in twentieth century political philosophy just about everywhere.
December 15th, 2008 at 10:17 am
You’re becoming Petey-esque
Thinking MY is being shitty and saying so twice in two days is the same as calling someone a scumbag for the better part of a year?
December 15th, 2008 at 10:19 am
I’d say Rawls is up there, but I would also put Charles Taylor and MacIntyre, his big foes, as well.
Also, as someone getting a doctorate in history, it’s certainly true that you can pick up, say, Sean Wilentz’s CHANTS DEMOCRATIC or Bailyn’s IDEOLOGICAL ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION and “get” them on one’s own more easily than one would, say, A CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON or THE SICKNESS UNTO DEATH.
But — but — having someone, whether as an undergrad or grad student, who has some notion of how the book you just read about the American Revolution fits into larger arguments and debates about that subject between historians, and what the author is particularly driving at by making such a big deal about x or y, is exceedingly helpful and enriching.
December 15th, 2008 at 10:42 am
I am not a philsophy professor and so do not feel like a can lead a seminar examining TOJ or PL, but I recommend the following books and articles for criticisms (sometimes sympathetic) of Rawls: the previously mentioned MacIntyre and Taylor; Habermas’ “Historical Critique of John Rawls’ Theory of Justice” and his “Reconciliation Through the Public Use of Reason” (and response by Rawls) in the Journal of Philosophy; and, of course, Brian Barry’s The Liberal Theory of Justice. In the seminar that I took on Rawls we read some feminist criticisms of Rawls, but I can’t remember the authors at the moment. I want to say we read Susan Okin’s Justice, Gender, and the Family.
December 15th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Given that Matt just told us he’s a compulsive liar about which books he’s read, I don’t see why his opinions on this subject have any credibility.
December 15th, 2008 at 11:38 am
No comment:
There is no need to be childish about this. I too don’t like that people lie about what books they’ve read in coversation because I don’t and would prefer that they also didn’t. I don’t, however, think Matt lies about books on his blog. The context of the lying was to impress girls or to chatting at some social function. So yes he may have lied about reading Moby Dick at one of those Georgetown cocktail parties (I kid, more likely an Adams Morgan beer bash), but he is hardly going to lie about reading Rawls on the blog.
December 15th, 2008 at 11:46 am
I think you’ll find that Rawls is considered the major figure in twentieth century political philosophy just about everywhere.
Rawls is considered one of the major figures in post WW2 political philosophy. At the very least you must include Habermas among the major pol philosophers of post-WW2.
December 15th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Also, a good intro to comtemporary politcal philosophy is Will Kymlicka’s intro:
http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Political-Philosophy-Will-Kymlicka/dp/0198782748/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229361527&sr=8-2
December 15th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Rawls’ theory of political liberalism, is, of course, gravely deficient as an account of the moral law.
December 15th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Hector said:
Yeah, and this submarine sandwich I just bought is a terrible umbrella.
December 15th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Interestingly, “The Law of Peoples” is a pretty straightforward read requiring minimal background in Rawls’ political philosophy, and it would seem right up the alley of Matt’s interests (international relations). I’ve read about 20 pages of Rawls other works, which give me headaches, and have had to rely on secordary sources for understanding him, and I’ve actually taught his philosophy.
One of the virtues of his one time arch-rival Robert Nozick is that his political philosophy in “Anarchy, State, and Utopia” is relatively simple, especially to teach. Of course, such strict libertarianism that he argues for is batsh-t crazy, but at least it’s easy.
December 15th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
It’s funny. My girlfriend, an avid reader and blogger, pointed me to this post, published a few days after I put up a post about Rawls on my new, amateurish blog. I guess something about the holidays just puts us in the spirit to think about the original position.
I would agree with your sentiment, that the Rawls books are more great than they are good. I have little perspective about what it would be like to approach them as somebody who hadn’t studied philosophy. But it strikes me that a good deal of contemporary analytical philosophy, and especially something as systematic as Rawls, would strike many people as plodding and pedantic. But, when you appreciate his project, and his influences, and the context, I think it becomes more clear what he’s trying to do, and it’s impressive, even if it sometimes might make your head hurt.
Also, in terms of who’s the biggest political philosopher on the block, I guess that depends on where you’re coming from and who you think has it closest to right. But, when someone pointed out Taylor and MacIntyre and referred to them as Rawls’s rivals, I think that makes the case for why Rawls looms so large. Rawls pushed so much of what had come right before (esp. utilitarianism) to the fringes, and most of what came after, to this day, is some sort of a response to him.
December 15th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Nozick’s political philosophy can be filed under solutions that are simple, neat, and wrong.
December 15th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Well, we’ve taken care of Nozick pretty easily. Anybody else we think we can smack into irrelevance?
I vote Hegel, who I think we can file under complex, obscurantist and (the ever-popular) wrong.
December 15th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Mark,
Don’t be ridiculous. Rawls clearly meant his work to be some sort of account of the underlying axioms that should underly a just and good society. Unfortunately, he signally fails in that regard, as do all of the disciples of the Locke/Jefferson school of political liberalism. Jefferson was gravely deficient as a political thinker, and so is Rawls.
January 15th, 2009 at 1:39 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
February 8th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
laptop battery
March 11th, 2009 at 4:48 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:30 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
tramadol
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:27 am
Great site. Good info
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:18 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:41 am
It is the coolest site,keep so! viagra
April 19th, 2009 at 8:48 am
iS49rR djtlzjgsodhp, [url=http://lyzrfwonxdrf.com/]lyzrfwonxdrf[/url], [link=http://jpowmcuelpyh.com/]jpowmcuelpyh[/link], http://ffnobovektxn.com/