The foundation under Rawls
I'm having a lot of trouble reading "A Theory of Justice." Part of what's wrong is that it's a library book and I cannot read political philosophy without a pen and a highlighter in my hand. I am an active, argumentative reader. I underline and highlight and write notes in the margin. I cannot do this with the library book and I am finding stuff to argue with. It's killing me not to write in the book. So I went to Amazon, thinking maybe I'd order it. But first I checked out the reviews. Oh, that was VERY helpful! One of the reviewers, P. Capofreddi, articulated EXACTLY why I'm having such trouble grokking it. The foundational premise from which he starts is flawed!
I've ordered a different book instead, "Rawls" by Samuel Freeman. I also went ahead and ordered Locke, Hobbes, Mill, Hume and Rousseau. I already have Plato's Republic sitting in my "to read" pile. I think I need to back up a bit and get a better foundation before I figure out what's wrong with Rawl. Because something surely is. It's reading like Marx in terms of brilliant philosophy about people that never were and never will be.
One of the books I'm buying is Locke's "A Letter Concerning Toleration: Humbly Submitted". I'm being bugged by people not being okay with Islam. The religion isn't what you think it is, ernunnos . It's no more about murder than Christianity is. People's actions need to be policed, but not their religions. It's time I re-read Locke so I can comment more intelligently. Right now I'm wondering if this Manhattan Mosque is all a media circus to keep us interested in being at war. We're not after Osama bin Laden. We're not even after Al-Qaeda. We're not after Saddam Hussein. So now we seem to just be after the Taliban and the way sovereign nations practice their religion and governance. It's shameful to me. My country has changed so much since 9/11 and none of it has been good.
Time to read up on what it was SUPPOSED to be like.
I've ordered a different book instead, "Rawls" by Samuel Freeman. I also went ahead and ordered Locke, Hobbes, Mill, Hume and Rousseau. I already have Plato's Republic sitting in my "to read" pile. I think I need to back up a bit and get a better foundation before I figure out what's wrong with Rawl. Because something surely is. It's reading like Marx in terms of brilliant philosophy about people that never were and never will be.
One of the books I'm buying is Locke's "A Letter Concerning Toleration: Humbly Submitted". I'm being bugged by people not being okay with Islam. The religion isn't what you think it is, ernunnos . It's no more about murder than Christianity is. People's actions need to be policed, but not their religions. It's time I re-read Locke so I can comment more intelligently. Right now I'm wondering if this Manhattan Mosque is all a media circus to keep us interested in being at war. We're not after Osama bin Laden. We're not even after Al-Qaeda. We're not after Saddam Hussein. So now we seem to just be after the Taliban and the way sovereign nations practice their religion and governance. It's shameful to me. My country has changed so much since 9/11 and none of it has been good.
Time to read up on what it was SUPPOSED to be like.