Rawls’ theory of justice is what Nozick called an “end-state” theory of justice. — NOS4A2

If you focus on the mechanics of realizing justice, but you can also read Rawls from the more theoretical perspective which analyzes justice as fairness in the context of Kantian-contractual theories. Establishing a mechanics of justice is complicated, but IMO it would be simplified if we could agree upon some theoretical pillars, such as "social goods" as Rawls calls them. The point I think is that social goods ought to be removed from the mechanics of redistribution altogether, and just treated as universal rights. De-economized.

I have bookmarked the chapter for later consumption. Rawls is already a super-dense read.

:up:

Yeah, what *is* the source of order in the universe? — Wayfarer

:up:

Information is first and foremost structured. A pile of rocks is just a pile of rocks, but the same pile laid out to spell ‘this is a pile of rocks’ in structured by the act of laying it out, and is no longer just a pile of rocks. It conveys information — Wayfarer

Interesting, I used an almost identical example in something I wrote in the early ninties.

I'm pretty familiar with the information theoretic notion of entropy and its interesting corelation with the thermodynamic concept. In that sense, I guess the interesting question is, what is it that makes one collection of things inherently more or less chaotic than another collection of things? And there is the whole 'lock and key' idea of the right information at the right time. If it isn't relevant to the task at hand, information is just noise. Doesn't the concept of information inherently contain the concept of purpose?

Why a handful of owners -- a capitalist class (also the ruling class) -- should be given the power over economic (and political) life is the question. I don't think they should. — Xtrix

And I don't think that anyone seriously disputes that, because it would be a rationally indefensible position.

So the question really is, how can an institution in such bad faith be so meticulously maintained? Either they have the best propaganda in existence, or the each and all of downtrodden masses secretly nurture aristocratic aspirations....

Certainly there is an apathos in it. A lack of feeling for others. — ZzzoneiroCosm

There is a "pathos" in it, as in pathology, I'll give you that! :lol:

certainly apathetic — ZzzoneiroCosm

I don't know, being compulsively driven to plunder and exploit doesn't seem to fit "apathetic" to me.....

This picture is missing one important piece: provided we get rid of capitalism first — Xtrix

I agree in principle with this statement, but it is an oversimplification I think. It is not capitalism, per se, that is the corruption point, but rather the elevation of corporate over individual rights, and the over-concentration of capital. In principle, a "restricted free-market" economics could realize the best of both worlds. I'm currently reading John Rawls' analysis of the inherent equilibrating capacities of the free-market (which I assume underlies whatever rational appeal the laissez-faire argument holds) and he is quite right, I think, in pointing out that it can be a tool of either a private or public ownership society:

It is evident, then, that there is no essential tie between the use of free markets and private ownership of the instruments of production. The idea that competitive prices under normal conditions are just or fair goes back at least to medieval times. While the notion that a market economy is in some sense the best scheme has been most carefully investigated by so-called bourgeois economists, this connection is a historical contingency in that, theoretically at least, a socialist regime can avail itself of the advantages of this system. One of these advantages is efficiency. Under certain conditions competitive prices select the goods to be produced and allocate resources to their production in such a manner that there is no way to improve upon either the choice of productive methods by firms, or the distribution of goods that arises from the purchases of households. There exists no rearrangement of the resulting economic configuration that makes one household better off (in view of its preferences) without making another worse off. No further mutually advantageous trades are possible; nor are there any feasible productive processes that will yield more of some desired commodity without requiring a cutback in another. For if this were not so, the situation of some individuals could be made more advantageous without a loss for anyone else. The theory of general equilibrium explains how, given the appropriate conditions, the information supplied by prices leads economic agents to act in ways that sum up to achieve this outcome. Perfect competition is a perfect procedure with respect to efficiency. Of course, the requisite conditions are highly special ones and they are seldom if ever fully satisfied in the real world. Moreover, market failures and imperfections are often serious, and compensating adjustments must be made by the allocation branch (see §43). Monopolistic restrictions, lack of information, external economies and diseconomies, and the like must be recognized and corrected. And the market fails altogether in the case of public goods. (Rawls, A Theory of Justice)

The final sentence highlights the critical concept. The notion of seriality in application of the principles of justice says that certain principles of justice must be satisfied first, before others can be applied. In particular, public goods, such as equality of liberty and opportunity. Therefore, when it comes to the general social welfare, economic considerations must be subordinated to social welfare, basic human needs and rights cannot be economized. Once this simple principle is understood and accepted as a 'prime directive,' the legitimate benefits of a free-market system can be reasonably enjoyed.

Laissez-faire economics is contrary to the principle of justice, that the fundamental rights of every individual are equally important. As well as guaranteeing equal liberty, the laws of social contract must ensure equal access to material advantages. This significantly takes the form of ensuring the rights of the most disadvantaged (John Rawls). Laissez-faire economics is nothing more than a glib attempt by the privileged to justify and maintain that position of unfair advantage through terminological fiat.

A Theory of Justice
by John Rawls

We only have one point of reference for ‘consciousness’. Anything else in some other time/space is not ‘conscious’ in any reasonably comparable manner unless such a being possesses a host of common features to humans. — I like sushi

So what is consciousness then? The only true and reliable answer is "I am".

What if your die had an infinite number of sides, do you think it would be circular? — Metaphysician Undercover

That's exactly what it means, it's basic calculus.

Science doesn’t understand anything because science isn’t a conscious being. — I like sushi

Disingenuous...I said understanding takes place by (i.e. through) either intuition or science, I did not personify science.

To say that the universe is a medium for consciousness is no different than saying conscious being exist in the universe … which they do. That is not panpsychism it is just agreeing that conscious beings exist. — I like sushi

I don't agree. Saying that water is a medium for a wave isn't the same thing as saying that the wave alone exists. The wave and the water are mutually necessary for there to be a wave. In the case of consciousness, however I think the wave and the water are mutually necessary for there to be either. Form and substance.

How much is understood by intuition and how much by science? Intuition preceded science. I would say the entire universe is essentially a medium for consciousness, which I take to be a variant of panpsychism.

It can't get more unscientific. Moreover, Dawkins uses dogma in his books just the same as the religious dogma he fights so vigorously. — EugeneW

Yes, Scientism is surely the most hypocritical prejudice of all.

Clearly, not every phenomenon in the universe reduces to events that can be quantified in convenient experimental terms. People live a long time and enjoy feedback from the universe that can stretch across years, even decades. Intelligence and an open mind go hand in hand.

I think the whole debate is less about whether or not there is a god and the mutual differentiation of the groups of "those who believe in god" and "those who don't", an ongoing elaboration of the process of schismogenesis. It is an argument about the basis of rationality.

Sure it's a cliché, but I didn't establish it as one - that was done by every thinker or apologist from Nietzsche to Jordan Peterson. It's a very common 'go to' argument against atheism. — Tom Storm

Such was certainly not Karl Polanyi's intent, it is a purely economic perspective, but it fits the bill.

That's the cliché, of course and it conveniently overlooks other factors. It reminds me of when I used to meet (some) old Germans, in the 1970's. They'd intone, "Say what you like about Hitler, but there was less crime, everyone knew their role and there was national pride.' Overarching foundational meta-narratives like religions bring unity and certainty, regardless of intrinsic merit. — Tom Storm

I don't see were you have established this is a cliche.

Karl Polanyi created the theory of substantive economics to specifically redress the problem that modern life has become over-monetized and lacking in substantive value. I live in the world; it's a real problem, not a cliche.

Sure. And even if society is more 'stable' or 'harmonious' under a monolithic religion, it says nothing about the truth of the belief system. It makes sense that a kind of monoculture, where there is minimal dissent or skepticism, is going to appear more stable. — Tom Storm

The commentary usually involves what Durkheim (for example) calls anomie, the sense of being alienated from any kind of substantive value.....

From a purely pragmatic standpoint, a great many social theorists (Durkheim, Weber, Scheler, Parsons) either observe or descry the onset and escalation of social deterioration associated with the decline of traditional religious values and the rise of industrial-scientific secular humanism. So if theism and atheism are both to be judged on their respective merits, then either one can be said to be on shaky ground. It depends on your perspective, doesn't it?

Yes, I'm getting a lot more from the books now, a lot of deep thoughts in there. My current reading focuses heavily on the social determinants of human thought, very much in tune with "psychohistory."

Just arrived - a nice set, although I wish it didn't have the Apple Tv logo on the covers. It's been forty years since I read the original trilogy. Really looking forward to this.....

The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity
by David Graeber, David Wengrow

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Or, in this case, it's just some bubbling neurochemicals....

That's something I've been trying to explain to people. The brain's functions generate the capacity to formulate conceptual frameworks from multisensory data, ethical frameworks fall within that category. — Garrett Travers

Even if that were true, every single ethical framework is a conceptual framework. There would be no basis for selecting between alternative but conflicting ethical frameworks that doesn't require an ethical (versus a material) presupposition. You can't just jump across the is-ought gap, nor can you declare it bridged by fiat.

The Quintessence of Socialism
by Albert Schäffle

Collectivism at its finest......

I think that we do get accurate information about the world via consciousness — Harry Hindu

Well, when you think about it (as I think about it) "consciousness" is information about the world - or universe. I think of it as a naturalistic phenomenology, or maybe a phenomenological naturalism......

So is it brains that produce consciousness or consciousness that produce brains? — Harry Hindu

:up:
Yes, this was exactly what I was saying.

:up:

This isn't relevant to complex systems characterized by numerous permutations of matter all operating to generate consciousness and conceptuaization. Unless we're willing to discuss it from its appropriate level, I'm afraid I'm going to have to dismiss your line of inquiry — Garrett Travers

I agree. Your level of analysis is arbitrary, relative to the scope of your claims

Or are social phenomena responsible for the evolution of the physical structures? There is no way you can decisively prove the direction of influence, because the actions of organisms decidedly do influence their subsequent evolution. Are subatomic particles (whose behaviour is much more stochastic) more real than atoms? Most people would think not. Baryonic matter is the prototype of substantial reality.

Of course. What about the social dimension? You are assuming the neurological level to be fundamental. Why should it be more fundamental than the biochemical level that facilitated it? Or the baryonic matter that facilitates that? It's an arbitrary dividing line in the direction between reduction and complexification. There are social phenomena which are as real as consciousness, but those cannot be derived from neuroscience.

You are implying that neuroscience is productive of consciousness. The reverse may very well be true. It's a question of what perspective you choose. I think that form has the more compelling argument.

Even if consciousness reduces to neuroscience, what has that proved? All you have done is reduce one complex phenomenon to another one. That doesn't prove one is more fundamental than the other. If anything, the opposite.

Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: An Analysis of the Writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber
by Anthony Giddens

The Mantle of Kendis-Dai (Starshield #1)
by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman

:100:

Just finished. A powerful book. In the last chapter, I forgot that I was reading for a time, I was so engrossed in the story.

If we were not responsible for our own thoughts then the statement "I am thinking this thought now" would be false. If it is false, then so is logic, science, and everything else predicated on thought. Since logic and science appear not to be false, it seems that we must be responsible for our own thoughts.

No kidding!

Haven't read this one but I am a sucker for Victorian Lit in general. Thomas Carlyle and Sir Walter Scott are a couple of my new top picks from last year's reading.