My medication seems to have kicked in during my long layover in Germany, as the flight from Frankfurt was not a problem for my ear. And a good thing, as I’ll be spending all day tomorrow coaching our research assistants on public speaking, which means listening and watching each give a public address (also recorded for them to have on DVD) and then offering constructive criticism.
Way off topic here, but I was wondering if you’d been following the Wilkinson/Sanchez v. Fry-Revere debate (re: Rawls) that’s been making its way around the blogosphere.
After reading the various posts only once, Fry-Revere is really beginning to embarrass herself. I know she’s a Ph.D. in philosophy, but is there any way to subtly indicate that she should just give this one up? Her posts are starting to make Cato look bad (which is a tough thing to do IMHO).
Greg,
I might not be a “Ph.D. in philosophy,” but I humbly submit that Fry-Revere is correct.
In his post “Why Rawls is Great!” Wilkinson says two curious things:
1. Most people “over-emphasize[] the importance of the ‘veil of ignorance’ in Rawls’ system.” I can’t see how this can possibly be so. Rawls’s is a contractarian system, and the veil of ignorance is the condition under which each agent consents to the social contract. He stipulates that no one in this thought experiment has any knowledge of himself, his relative standing, etc. In short, the veil is pretty much all everyone has. It’s the centerpiece of the game. This is particularly odd when coupled with Wilkinson’s second curious remark:
2. “Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia…famously begins with an unsupported assumption of John Locke-style individual rights. If you don’t accept the assumption, the argument just doesn’t get going.”
Nozick starts in a state of nature where people can work out their differences yet still desire protection. Rawls starts around a metaphorical bargaining table in a society populated by ciphers that don’t desire anything (since they are ignorant of their “particular conceptions of the good.”). Which of these arguments “just doesn’t get going,” again? I certainly don’t think it’s so clear-cut in Rawls’s that Tom needs to “subtly indicate” anything to Fry-Revere.
Here is an interesing interview that Milton Friedman gave in Iceland in 1984.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1107486496526618897
Just wanted to get it into circulation.