Check out the Philosophy Vibe 'Political Philosophy' eBook, available on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibe9

Your videos are so helpful! You take these really dense texts and difficult to understand concepts and break them down into really easily understandable and succinct points and present it as a lovely debate between friends and I love it!

@PhilosophyVibe

2 жыл бұрын

Lovely to read this, so glad you find these videos useful :D

This channel is incredible.Keep making videos and I hope you get more subs

@PhilosophyVibe

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you very much :D

This was the most easy and productive way , that explained rawl's original position

@PhilosophyVibe

Жыл бұрын

Glad you found it useful :)

These videos are great. Keep it up

@PhilosophyVibe

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you!

Best 💯❤

Great video, I love Rawls.

@PhilosophyVibe

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you!

This channel is something Special. This is a Thing👍

@PhilosophyVibe

4 ай бұрын

Thank you :)

Now where are we going to find this veil of ignorance. 😮

love your videos... my take: the veil is a nice mental exercise but seems implausible. How could you even decide what is just when there is no knowledge of the self? seems oxymoronic. The "justice" concept derives from human social experience, without a determined self it would be empty.

@ColonelMuppet

Жыл бұрын

Correct. It’s a priori utopian twaddle. People will always say they want a “just” society but competitiveness for genes means they are not naturally altruistic. Even if my society was completely “fair”, I would still desire a wife that was beyond what was given to me in my perfectly fair culture.

I feel like Charie Day is teaching me philosophy.

Any quallity upgrade to 1080p from 720p in the future?

Rawls was a great thinker, no doubt. However, I question the assumption that under the veil of ignorance, people would find "universal" truths and rights and could agree unanimously on anything. Take the equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity debate, for example. It seems some people are by nature (i.e. from birth) die hard adherents to the survival of the fittest principle, while others are unable to accept that society can be just when big differences in quality of life exists among its members. The former prefer raw capitalism, the latter demand and dream of communism. How could those two groups ever agree what kind of economy to implement? And this is just one of a myriad of parameters would have to agree on. In the end, even under the veil of ignorance, people would have to compromise, leaving many dissatisfied.

@jonde-cent4897

2 жыл бұрын

I think there are universals that must be and can be accepted if we value “rational agreement”. If we don’t value a rational politic, then of course universals are not possible. But politics is not really possible either then - a community that doesn’t value rationality live as animals, fighting for power with violence. If we value rationality though, then we must accept and value: - logic - experience (spacetime) - past experience (memory/facticity) - possible experience (desire/value) - self - causality - thinking (reason) - responsibility These are universal to all rational thinking people. Then, to make politics possible, we need to accept a few more things: - reject solipsism - terms (logical language) This allows us to rationally agree, or consent (and/or tacit consent). the veil of ignorance becomes necessary to tacit consent The “equality of outcome” stop at these universals. So police and military would provide equal service to all those who consent, and food and shelter would need to be provided equally to all people. I call it the “freedom floor” and the communist types would definitely appreciate it. But there is still room for free market chances as part of the “luxury system” - once the universals are protected of course

@ColonelMuppet

Жыл бұрын

It’s easily debunked rubbish….you cant make a priori assumptions like he does. It takes a goofy liberal idea of humanity to reach its conclusions. People might say they want to be born into a “fair” society where they are valued equally for their contributions, but it’s silly utopian liberal thought. The fact is that people might say that is what they want if they had a choice, but the reality is that human beings will seek every devious means they can to advance themselves in society…it’s biologically built. People like Rawls should be consigned to the history books as another failed philosopher.

@jonde-cent4897

Жыл бұрын

@@ColonelMuppet “biologically built” to be manipulative is quite the (trash) essentialist claim. Maybe you can’t start with purely a priori assumptions, but there are a priori axioms that all politics using tacit consent need. It’s not in Rawls work, but consider this: Do you reject solipsism? All of politics assumes that there are “other minds” and that these “other minds” reject solipsism. If you don’t, then you’re irrelevant to a conversation. If “Yes”, we now have accepted a universal and logical language. This language requires a commitment to logic (never contradicting the identity of these terms), and it implies we must define these minds. All of these minds are equal in some way - that’s what rejecting solipsism implies. I’ve suggested that it is necessary to define the mind by accepting: logic, space-time, past experience (memory), future experience (desire), self (unity of consciousness), causality, reason, and responsibility. This is all necessary to give us terms and then consent (to the rejection of solipsism). It also gives us a unanimous desire - to keep our capability to reason. If we use these universal assumptions and the General Will to build a social contract that uses tacit consent, then to rationally uphold tacit consent, *all laws must be applied equally to all minds*. It’s not about equal outcomes, it’s about equal representation in law. This is absolutely necessary to a rational, western politic that uses tacit consent. And the veil of ignorance gives us a tool to understand how these laws MUST be constructed. Laws must only serve the general will, and equally apply to all. If you’re arguing otherwise you’ve lose the plot or prefer dictatorship.

@ColonelMuppet

Жыл бұрын

@@jonde-cent4897 what you say is completely axiomatic: you don’t need any Rawlsian ideas to reach that conclusion. Rawls makes it worse in fact: he blows religiosity into social justice and the legal system.

@jonde-cent4897

Жыл бұрын

@@ColonelMuppet I’m just commenting on where Rawls idea of the veil of ignorance/original position fits in. Not the rest of his work. Call it axiomatic, but U.S. and Canadian law does not seem to understand this. We legislate waaaay too much culture - tax breaks and funding for sports, church, etc. And we don’t provide services that would protect our ability to reason i.e. food.

they guy on the left sounds like he has a sore throat

isn't that just diet socialism

I oppose coercively taking people's wealth.

@dystopiaeatsmoney

Жыл бұрын

Have you thought about how many people come to be wealthy?

@kingplayze914

4 ай бұрын

Totally. But even the 1% versus 99% cut is childish economics. The top 1% of the 1% make the 99% of the 1% look like peasants. Rawls is right. But it'll need to be done forcibly imo. Too many proles are followers. Not thinkers. Money can pay thinkers, always does, to do their heavy lifting. Money owns the law. Therefore the law must be broken to remake society. Either that or people get smarter (outlook not good imo) and start acting like they understand democracy and that it is people power. Again. Smarter humans is good.