Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: John Rawls

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,407
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default John Rawls



    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 .
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    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.

  3. #3
    Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,168
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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).

  4. #4
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,407
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    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.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  5. #5
    Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,168
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,407
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    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.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  7. #7
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,407
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ifmd95 View Post
    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.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  8. #8
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,742
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •