John Rawls

[Logos]

John Rawls is quite arguably one of the most important political philosophers of the 20th century who has been responsible for a renewal of interest in the social contract concept. His more famous ideas deal with the original position (a rethinking of the "state of nature" argument), overlapping consensus in pluralities, the theoretical veil of ignorance in political decision making, and justice as fairness.

I think that Rawls is most likely an INTj-Ne with INFj being the next likely possibility. The interesting thing is that while I see him being > , his works often seem to try and walk the line between social and an awareness of more individualistic .

[Logos]

i don't entirely agree with Rawls himself but i think your analysis of him is quite valid. i've used him in the past as a prototype of INTj-Ne even; but perhaps he is a bit more Fi/Ne than most of that subtype.

Well I do think that he does not present pragmatic models, but more hypothetical and idealized models as a means of presenting key ideas. Not that I agree with him on all points either, but I am curious as to what you do not agree with in regards to Rawls' ideas. I ask because honestly I do not get the chance much to talk about Rawls in my current setting, so I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

[munenori2]

I'm only peripherally acquainted with his work, so I can't comment much in that area. A more general remark I might make is that, particularly in the realm of ethics, I notice quite a few philosophers that seem to walk the fine line between the two INxj's. Regardless, they seem to be very strong on the Ne point, yet more balanced in their introverted rational functions. I haven't given David Hume much thought as to type (since I'm quite ignorant of his personal history), but he seemed to have an extremely strong grasp of Fi, in my opinion.

[Phaedrus]

Rawls reminds me a lot of Karl Popper who I also think might be INTj or INFj.

Popper is an extremely clear example of a ego type. He is absolutely not an INTj or an INFj. The most likely type for him is probably ENTj.

I might come back to Rawls, whose type I am much less sure of, but he is certainly much more likely to be an INTj or INFj than Popper is.

[Ezra]

I'm not keen on his ideas. I personally think there is a Fi motivation there, to do with his wanting to get everyone to follow this theory of the Veil of Ignorance as a thought experiment, to see what a just world would be like. They're not practical, they're not going to work, so why bother? EII I'm more inclined to see. Kind of like a modern day Marcus Aurelius (or not).

[Logos]

I'm not keen on his ideas. I personally think there is a Fi motivation there, to do with his wanting to get everyone to follow this theory of the Veil of Ignorance as a thought experiment, to see what a just world would be like. They're not practical, they're not going to work, so why bother? EII I'm more inclined to see. Kind of like a modern day Marcus Aurelius (or not).

Because it is not necessarily designed to be a working model of anything, but a way to get us thinking about political liberalism.

[Ezra]

Because it is not necessarily designed to be a working model of anything, but a way to get us thinking about political liberalism.

I know, but the point of getting people to think about political theories is so that we can all analyse, criticise, and judge them, so that if they work, we can implement them. But with Rawls' ideas, as nice as they are, this simply could not occur.

[Logos]

I know, but the point of getting people to think about political theories is so that we can all analyse, criticise, and judge them, so that if they work, we can implement them. But with Rawls' ideas, as nice as they are, this simply could not occur.

Then you seem to be missing the point or just doing a rather piss poor job of analyzing, criticizing, and judging of his ideas. They cannot be implemented in any tangible sense and even Rawls seems to realize that, so you are probably missing the point then. There are no proposed laws or restructuring of society, but more like thinking about how political liberal societies work or operate best. It is about a goal and a mindset to approach living and working in such societies, which is why his work is often appraised by societal and political ethicists. What Rawls is proposing is right down the lane of John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and John Stuart Mill in political philosophy.

[Ezra]

Then you seem to be missing the point or just doing a rather piss poor job of analyzing, criticizing, and judging of his ideas. They cannot be implemented in any tangible sense and even Rawls seems to realize that, so you are probably missing the point then. There are no proposed laws or restructuring of society, but more like thinking about how political liberal societies work or operate best. It is about a goal and a mindset to approach living and working in such societies, which is why his work is often appraised by societal and political ethicists. What Rawls is proposing is right down the lane of John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and John Stuart Mill in political philosophy.

I don't think you understand where I'm coming from. Rawls ideas will not realistically work in real life, regardless of what he is inferring. Hence, they are completely useless, and in my eyes, pointless to discuss. Perhaps as an LII, you're taking a different viewpoint; that every idea merits discussion, practical or not. But what I'm arguing is that if something doesn't work from the outset, it's completely pointless to discuss it. Discussion is for something other than intellectual stimulation, even if intellectual stimulation is what some might find most pleasure in.

[Logos]

I don't think you understand where I'm coming from. Rawls ideas will not realistically work in real life, regardless of what he is inferring. Hence, they are completely useless, and in my eyes, pointless to discuss. Perhaps as an LII, you're taking a different viewpoint; that every idea merits discussion, practical or not. But what I'm arguing is that if something doesn't work from the outset, it's completely pointless to discuss it. Discussion is for something other than intellectual stimulation, even if intellectual stimulation is what some might find most pleasure in.

BUT HE IS NOT CREATING A MODEL OF SOMETHING TO WORK! HIS PHILOSOPHY IS MORE DESCRIPTIVE OF HOW IT IDEALLY WORKS!

[Ezra]

I know, but what's the point of showing how something ideally works? There isn't one. That's why I don't give a shit about studying his work.

[Logos]

I know, but what's the point of showing how something ideally works? There isn't one. That's why I don't give a shit about studying his work.

No the problem is that you cannot see it. But you also fail to see that his work has had real practical applications in the field of political philosophy, in courts, and among politicians. He is creating an ideal goal within political ethics about how things should be. That does have practical implications even if what he is talking about is not something that can be tangibly implemented. It is about creating an ideal reference point as a better means of understanding and implementing the non-ideal. And that is why your views on this matter make me feel like this:

[Ms. Kensington]

that is a funny last two posts there... completely past one another.

But yeah, you can't really criticize building a model for the ideal when the goal is to work toward it. That's the whole purpose of an ideal.

I had thought Rawls was Ti quadra as well. Not seeing why you are all saying he's Ne sub specifically though.

[Ezra]

This is something we're gonna have to agree to disagree on, Logos. Just as I did with my political theory tutor.

[munenori2]

So would this be an example of a disagreement on a Ti/Te basis? I can see both sides, but I agree more with Logos in that the theory is something which doesn't prescribe an action, but dictates a standard by which actions are measured. I can see how Ezra might feel that there are no real ways in which the theory can be enacted or manifested, however I think it still has potential.

[Ms. Kensington]

So would this be an example of a disagreement on a Ti/Te basis? I can see both sides, but I agree more with Logos in that the theory is something which doesn't prescribe an action, but dictates a standard by which actions are measured. I can see how Ezra might feel that there are no real ways in which the theory can be enacted or manifested, however I think it still has potential.

are you still questioning your type mun? i just got a flash back to every single Ne+ Fi person i have ever know n when you said "I can see both sides"

[munenori2]

are you still questioning your type mun? i just got a flash back to every single Ne+ Fi person i have ever know n when you said "I can see both sides"

It's funny you should bring that up. I didn't start questioning my type until I sent a PM off about twenty minutes ago and began to reflect on my woefully unenlightened knowledge of socionics.

But I appreciate your input as always, Ms. Kensington. For some reason that sentence makes me think I should bow or doff my hat to you (if I were wearing one). Granted, I just finished reading 'The Age of Innocence' this last week.

[Logos]

So would this be an example of a disagreement on a Ti/Te basis? I can see both sides, but I agree more with Logos in that the theory is something which doesn't prescribe an action, but dictates a standard by which actions are measured. I can see how Ezra might feel that there are no real ways in which the theory can be enacted or manifested, however I think it still has potential.

It actually sounds more like a disagreement on a Ni/Ne basis?

[munenori2]

It actually sounds more like a disagreement on a Ni/Ne basis?

Possibly, I've decided my view of functions is decidely muddled, even though I did wonder if Ne/Ni would play into it as well.

[Logos]

Or rather, it may deal more with an Ne/Se divide: conceptual models versus concrete models.

[Elro]

Or rather, it may deal more with an Ne/Se divide: conceptual models versus concrete models.

Yup.

Ezra, there are ways that developing an idealized situation can be useful. Similarly, one can never achieve perfect tolerances in machining, but one can minimize the error in one's measurements. The less error there is in a hinge's dimensions, the smoother the door will open, or something. You might never have a perfect world, but you'd want one as good as you can realistically make it, right?

(I haven't read Rawls' work yet, just presenting what I think Logos was trying to get at.)

[hellothere]

are you still questioning your type mun? i just got a flash back to every single Ne+ Fi person i have ever know n when you said "I can see both sides"

this sounds to me like something any Ne ego type would say - though perhaps strong Fi/Fe does come into it somehow - and when you said Ne+Fi were you referring to IEEs specifically, or Delta NFs in general?

[Logos]

Back more on topic, the choice has been narrowed down to INxj based upon the varied amount that people know of Rawls, so which would most people be inclined to think in regards to Rawls?

I found that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an excellent page on the philosophy of John Rawls.

[munenori2]

Back more on topic, the choice has been narrowed down to INxj based upon the varied amount that people know of Rawls, so which would most people be inclined to think in regards to Rawls?

I found that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an excellent page on the philosophy of John Rawls.

Well, I could see myself producing what he did, so I don't know if that means an INFj with a reasonable level of Ti or what. It's possible, but I fret to produce probabilities.