This was such a treat! I do think Michael is correct about the danger of market society being ultimately unfulfilling, which is indeed coming to pass and has long been predicted by a wide range of scholars, both sociologically and philosophically. I think that Michael has been slightly harsh on Rawls, or if not harsh, I would argue that Rawls can offer us an alternative way to structure us beyond an individualist and atomistic view of the world which is oftentimes presented.
I think what Rawls was trying to get at, something which Alexandre Lefebvre talks about in liberalism as a way of life, is a stronger connection to the broader contours of justice within all of us. It is not simply what we would like, but more importantly, what we think everyone else would want. I know the classic conservative critique is that this is inherently individualistic because of the veil of ignorance, but in re-reading Rawls, I am less sure of this case now.
Regarding the final point made by Michael's son about the value of alternative contributions to the community, this is both correct and incorrect. I think he is correct to make the point that an architect can just be an architect, but I also believe we do have a wider crisis of hyper-specialisation which needs to be adjusted.
I do also think what we put 'value' on needs to be readjusted. Somewhat selfishly, as I am currently jobless and finding that my own philosophical skillset is not being advertised which is quite depressing when I think about it.
This was such a treat! I do think Michael is correct about the danger of market society being ultimately unfulfilling, which is indeed coming to pass and has long been predicted by a wide range of scholars, both sociologically and philosophically. I think that Michael has been slightly harsh on Rawls, or if not harsh, I would argue that Rawls can offer us an alternative way to structure us beyond an individualist and atomistic view of the world which is oftentimes presented.
I think what Rawls was trying to get at, something which Alexandre Lefebvre talks about in liberalism as a way of life, is a stronger connection to the broader contours of justice within all of us. It is not simply what we would like, but more importantly, what we think everyone else would want. I know the classic conservative critique is that this is inherently individualistic because of the veil of ignorance, but in re-reading Rawls, I am less sure of this case now.
Regarding the final point made by Michael's son about the value of alternative contributions to the community, this is both correct and incorrect. I think he is correct to make the point that an architect can just be an architect, but I also believe we do have a wider crisis of hyper-specialisation which needs to be adjusted.
I do also think what we put 'value' on needs to be readjusted. Somewhat selfishly, as I am currently jobless and finding that my own philosophical skillset is not being advertised which is quite depressing when I think about it.
Brb, off to listen to Arvo Pärt