All right, now, let us all take a deep breath and
relax. In the intellectual and political
neighborhood where I live, calling someone a fascist is not a forceful way of
making a point. It is a conversation
ending insult. Nobody who has been
contributing to this discussion [is this what is called a thread?] is a
fascist, nobody. This kind of language,
or its analogue, may be appropriate in sectarian religious feuds, where one’s
immortal soul is literally at stake, but it has no place in disagreements among
men and women who by any plausible measure occupy very nearly the same rather
narrow segment of the political spectrum.
Let us recall that all of this was provoked by my remarks concerning
Trump’s Russian connection. Inasmuch as
I know nothing at all firsthand about the subject, I was merely idly speculating.
If we cannot be civil to one another, I shall have to go
back to talking about Marx, which at least does not get people upset. J
2 comments:
Prof Wolff, I love your blog. I ignore the comments.
Two questions.
1. Why do so many political philosophers hold Rawls in such high regard. I know that you do not, but that seems to be a minority opinion in the scholarly world.
2. What historical manifestations of governments or power arrangements would you point to as healthy examples towards which individuals and comminities should strive?
I have lived under modified forms of capitalism, state-sponsored socialism, and other forms of political economies. I would welcome your thoughts on this.
Regards
Fergus
Fergus, regarding Rawls, I offer this quotation from Nietzsche: "Gradually it has become clear to me what every great philosophy so far has been: namely, the personal confession of its author and a kind of involuntary and unconscious memoir[.]" (Beyond Good and Evil, I:§6)
Post a Comment