I am curious about my readership. This business of blogging is very hard for me, because I cannot see you, see how you respond, hear you as you comment. It is all really odd.
So here is my pop quiz. In my last post, I confessed that I am envious of Rawls' fame. Is there anyone among my readers who understands that this confession [not the envy, the confession of it] is an expression of my arrogance?
I did not understand your confession as an expression of arrogance. I thought it was an attempt at humor and found it humorous. Wouldn't be the first time I misunderstood something though. As for commenting, I have also found some of my comments are misunderstood, not so much here I hope. It is my fault, I have decided, when something I write is perceived in a completely different manner than I intended. Maybe that is an expression of my own arrogance :). In any event, you are very good at this blogging business in general, although if you wished to convey the idea that your admitting an envy of Rawls was an attempt to express arrogance, well that went right over my head.
ReplyDeleteI took the admission to be self-deprecating humor. As were my comments. It's not as if the only proper response to Rawls is awe and reverence. Unless that follows from his theory of justice...
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePerhaps it follows from Rawls's theory that his remuneration and reputation (one of the currencies of academia) must exceed that of any other political philosopher, since they all benefit from his theory of justice, and so they must approve of Rawls's higher paycheck and reputation out of self interest. It is the height of arrogance, therefore, to think one might enjoy anything like Rawls's reputation. I'm at a loss otherwise how to make this a plausible answer to a pop quiz...
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI should be more careful, since a distinction was made between the internal experience of envy (which may be involuntary and outside the moral sphere) and the expression of envy, which is a behavior subject to moral judgment. Ok, the open admission of envy then expresses disagreement with the pareto optimal distribution of income and reputation that obtains when Rawls himself is compensated enough to want to work as a political philosopher on the theory of justice, instead of working as a dock worker. By his own theory, since Rawls is aiming at the highest good (if we believe Plato or Aristotle) and the improvement of all citizens of society (if we believe Socrates), everyone, not only political philosophers, must agree out of self interest to the higher compensation (in income and reputation) that Rawls receives. Expressing envy of Rawls's reputation expresses disagreement with the distribution compatible with justice. This goes against self interest and can fairly be called outrageous and arrogant.
ReplyDeleteB- I guess. OK a gentleman's C. (This is my last edit.)
Sure, I understand that.
ReplyDeleteIs it arrogance or a justified sense of self esteem?
ReplyDelete"The confession of it," to me, is yet another example of your astonishing openness. The ease with which you make yourself vulnerable is the mark of an unusual degree of mental health.
ReplyDeleteOh Bob, your arrogance squeals like nails on a chalkboard between and within the lines of almost everything you write on this blog. But we think you are great anyway.
ReplyDeleteKyla
Well, there is the interesting category now called the humblebrag.
ReplyDeleteBest Qualified Leads For MCA method has several leading elements needed to modify the MCA Leads Guide to the approaching jobs in the Qualified MCA Leads Data.
ReplyDelete