philosophy meta-forum

Political philosophy now

Alexius

13 day(s) ago

Putin, Orban, Duterte, Li, and Trump. Are they grouped together? Do we care what the Rawlsterbators have to say? What can philosophers and political theorist do constructively for politics in now that oligarchy/autocracy is on the rise?

Anaximander

13 day(s) ago

"What can philosophers and political theorist do..."

As philosophers, zip, but it doesn't matter because they aren't needed. Activism isn't scholarship and scholarship is definitely not activism.

Anne

13 day(s) ago

I'm cracking open a beer and watching all your liberal delusions die.

If you aren't one of the idiots who bought into the advertising and thought that learning how to draw careful distinctions in obscure technical debates gave you special insight into human beings, you'll be doing the same.

The rest of you, well, you'll be so smart that you won't see the pitchforks coming. That's worth something, right?

Andy

13 day(s) ago

Wh

Raymond

13 day(s) ago

"What can philosophers and political theorist do..."

As philosophers, zip, but it doesn't matter because they aren't needed. Activism isn't scholarship and scholarship is definitely not activism.

Anaximander

If only philosophers would have the humility to think the same.

Gustav

13 day(s) ago

Rawlsologists have nothing to say. Look at the political realists for the future of the discipline.

J.B.

12 day(s) ago

Rawlsologists have nothing to say. Look at the political realists for the future of the discipline.

Gustav

Rawlsology, in the sense of poring over the meaning of the sacred texts, is over. Plenty of good work being done on all sorts of topic by people using Rawlsian or Dworkinian tools though. Political realism? Not really a thing, just a bit of advertising for self-promotional purposes by a handful of mediocrities.

Martha

12 day(s) ago

A bunch of inferior intellectual lightweights whose worth as human beings is less than that of the most forgetable poop particle of Rawls'

Ho

12 day(s) ago

There are two forms of realism in political philosophy.

One equals Raymond Geuss nonsense. Here, "realism" = "known to be false Marxism".

But then there's "realism" as in PPE-style philosophy, which relies on actual social science.

Arne

12 day(s) ago

I'm cracking open a beer and watching all your liberal delusions die.

If you aren't one of the idiots who bought into the advertising and thought that learning how to draw careful distinctions in obscure technical debates gave you special insight into human beings, you'll be doing the same.

The rest of you, well, you'll be so smart that you won't see the pitchforks coming. That's worth something, right?

Anne

Never bought into it, my man. Could that be why I drink so much beer?

Cicero

9 day(s) ago

So what is the point of all this political theory of war studies if they're going to give such disingenuous answers:

http://dailynous.com/2018/04/13/syria-misconceptions-philosophy/

As if had we asked in 2013 should we use military intervention, the answer from them would have been a "yes". Instead, it would have been an "er, I don't know, but maybe we could have avoided this situation by..." just as they did this time.

At the moment, it feels like the historian for whom every question is "not quite their period".

Javad

9 day(s) ago

So what is the point of all this political theory of war studies if they're going to give such disingenuous answers:

http://dailynous.com/2018/04/13/syria-misconceptions-philosophy/

As if had we asked in 2013 should we use military intervention, the answer from them would have been a "yes". Instead, it would have been an "er, I don't know, but maybe we could have avoided this situation by..." just as they did this time.

At the moment, it feels like the historian for whom every question is "not quite their period"

Cicero

Maybe you should clarify what you think is 'disingenuous' by philosophers demurring from laying out detailed political and military strategy and policy? (And also, Frowe, in comments, points out that the reporter and the Atlantic basically distorted what they had to say. She takes it better that I would have. The reporter is basically just a fucking liar.)

Dugald

9 day(s) ago

Well I guess that's the point. You say "philosophers" as if to absolve them of responsibility, but if their job is philosophy of "detailed political and military strategy and policy" (that is, after all, what war is..) then it doesn't seem unreasonable.

Emerich

9 day(s) ago

Philosophers don't like it when you ask them to have their theories own up to reality. That is one reason for the yellow bellied cowardice of 95% of everyone in the discipline.

Brian

8 day(s) ago

Their job is philosophy of detailed political military strategy and policy??

That's Peter Singer's AOS?

Donald

7 day(s) ago

There are two forms of realism in political philosophy.

One equals Raymond Geuss nonsense. Here, "realism" = "known to be false Marxism".

But then there's "realism" as in PPE-style philosophy, which relies on actual social science.

Ho

And where does Bernard Williams' realism fit in all this?

Dorothy

6 day(s) ago

Their job is philosophy of detailed political military strategy and policy??

That's Peter Singer's AOS?

Brian

Who mentioned Singer? The analogy is with legal philosophy. Is it reasonable to expect Ronald Dworkin to have a view on the major constitutional issues of the day? Yes. And he published those views regularly in the press.



Allowed tags: 'p', 'b', 'em', 'blockquote'. URLs are automatically linkified.
posts per page.