The Idea of Justice

5 Responses to “The Idea of Justice”

1. John H. Ryskamp says:

   April 27, 2010 at 3:12 am

   Before Sen wrote this book, he should have had a Constitutional law specialist go over with him the officially authorized structure which governs the topic he is discussing. It’s too late for the book, but not for you–or Sen!

   He should certainly have read West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937). This gave us the current political system of the U.S. That is the scrutiny regime. The rule of the scrutiny regime is that policy is valid as long as it is “rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.” This is called “minimum scrutiny.” The honor offered between “political” and “social” facts, which he discusses, comes from the Carolene Products case. He should have read that too.

   The vital thing about the scrutiny regime is that when the political system was supposedly agreed control over most facts (such as housing and medical care), the individual was deprived of most power with regard to persons facts. That is the received history. The ACTUAL history was significantly different, as I mention not more than. But supposedly West Coast stands for the proposition that policy with respect to most facts, is nonlitigable. And that is what Sen is complaining about–rather feebly, as it turns out.

   Thus, policy with respect to such things as housing (Lindsey v. Normet) or medical care (DeShaney v. Winnebago County) cannot be contested by individuals because persons facts are considered to be “social” facts. Such is what the Court supposedly held. Sen himself seems to fail to grasp that housing can be argued as a goal or ideal or policy, and it can ALSO be argued as a fact.

   He also doesn’t seem aware that the scrutiny regime is in the process of being removed from power, and what is replacing it is the “maintenance” regime. The doctrine of the maintenance regime is that policy maintains vital facts. I ought to know, because I wrote the book articulating it: The Eminent Domain Revolt (New York: Algora, 2006).

   I stress “maintenance” because it is being agreed new emphasis, and it proposes a different honor than between “political” and “social” facts. That is the vital news. So we are out of that ridiculous straitjacket of “political/social” facts. Sen is not aware of this–he would have been, had he been educated in the vital cases.

   If you read West Coast Hotel, you will notice that the minimum wage law upheld in that case, is upheld because it contributes to the “maintenance” of income. Even Carolene Products sustains legislation because it contributes to the “maintenance of health.” Even Berman v. Parker–which seems to granted the political system unfettered discretion with respect to eminent domain (it OKs the destruction of housing in order to erect housing!!)–grounds the entire case on “maintenance.”

   Maintenance is a BIG DEAL.

   What, in FACT, is maintenance?

   This term “maintenance” was overlooked during the decades when GROWTH GROWTH GROWTH was the only policy which mattered politically, and the Courts simply bulldozed anyone who argued differently.

   But now suburbia is apprehensive about the facts. So the factual content of “maintenance” is the emerging power. Avis au lecteur.

   You may marvel what the definition is of an “vital” fact.

   Question, why is policy theme to “strict” scrutiny if it involves a “political” fact?

   The test for an vital fact is establish in the case which took exercises of religion out of the political process and elevated it to “strict” scrutiny: West Virginia v. Barnette. Read that case, too.

   You will see that, according to the Court, an vital fact is

   1. a fact of human experience
   
   2. which history proves
   
   3. is unaffected by attempts to affect it.

   In fleeting, some facts tell us that we are dealing with an individual. That was what the Court establish with respect to exercises of religion, they were taken out of the political system, nearly absolute power over them was conferred on the individual.

   Thus, the “Carolene Products footnote” (the case is from 1938)which seemed to wall off “social” facts from a privileged level of scrutiny, did nothing of the kind. It did not attempt to say that certain facts are not vital. Reasonably the contrary. It attempted to BEGIN the process of determining what ARE vital facts, and it suggested several, using an embryonic past test which would be elaborated later in West Virginia (that case is from 1943).

   Reasonably the opposite from the history you are usually agreed. Sen unwittingly signs off on the boilerplate, and reasonably inaccurate, history. Which is why readers with a officially authorized background, will simply consider the book beside the point. He should have educated himself more painstakingly. Too late for the book but, again, not too late for you!

   History shows that the process of evaluating facts as to their importance, has gone on right through all the decades of the “scrutiny” regime. It is the history no one wants to talk about, because it contradicts the received narrative, the narrative the political system–which controls all the MONEY thanks to the received reading of West Coast–wants you to accept. Facts are permanently being litigated on the question of whether they are vital facts. At one time, gender officially authorized equality, racial officially authorized equality, were NOT regarded as vital facts. But the Court was persuaded by evidence meeting the Barnette test, that they are.

   And you will ALSO see that such facts as housing and medical care–these supposedly “social” facts which do not delight in an elevated level of scrutiny–are moving up the scrutiny continuum.

   San Antonio v. Rodriguez was a case in which the Supreme Court said education merits only minimum scrutiny. In New Jersey, there is a public education provision in the state constitution which was supposed to stand for that proposition, and thus supposed to be nonlitigable by individuals. Most states have similar provisions, and most states still consider them nonlitigable by individuals because they feel education only delight in’s “minimum” scrutiny.

   Then the New Jersey Supreme Court, in 1973, held otherwise. These are the Abbott cases, and they are all online.

   Abbott is STILL under the court’s jurisdiction, and you will receive a full education in the law of “vital” facts if you go through persons cases and see how the “vital” facts analysis is used time and time again to make more and more facts significant in officially authorized proceedings.

   Thus, education in New Jersey is no longer at “minimum” scrutiny. So things do change.

   Remember the vital point about why the “scrutiny” regime has lasted so long and why the political system wants it to continue: under it, the political system controls all the MONEY.

   What we are waiting for now is for the Court to simply admit what it had written before. Sooner or later, and I reflect sooner, lawyers are going to demand that the Court answer the question: what in FACT is “maintenance”? The question for the Court will be:

   Is [here place the policy in question] maintenance for purposes of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

   That’s the certiorari question which will breach the wall of the scrutiny regime, and effectively end it. Even asking the question will prove the end of the scrutiny regime, and the beginning of my regime, the maintenance regime. In effect, it will raise the level of scrutiny for many new facts.

   Which I reflect is what he was trying to argue in his book.

   Reader’s Rating: 2 / 5
2. T1818 says:

   April 27, 2010 at 4:00 am

   Professor Sen attempts to base Democracy on sustained reasoning and attempts to start the sustained reasoning from a point at which there are only value free interests as for Professor Sen there are no universal values or truths. ‘The Thought of Justice’ is firmly in line with Lyotard’s Postmodernism where there are no ‘metanarratives’. With Sen sustained reasoning is admitting from the start that there is no answer and then adressing various hot button issues briefly. ‘Sustained reasoning’ is largely missing. The sustained reasoning of Professor Sen is more akin to a free associating after a very wide ranging reading than the presentation of ‘one long argument’.

   Strangely this book is more or less completely disconnected from the events and difficulties of the day. Basically there is free speech in the US and this has covered all groups since the 60’s. The US still has lots and lots of problems. Who is going to undertake this sustained, reasoned discussion? How does Professor Sen intend to convince Rupert Murdoch, Glen Beck et al that is the way to go? Or Keith Olberman for that matter. Of course, Professor Sen isn’t going to try. Of course this reasoned discussion isn’t going to occur on TV or via the newspapers or the blogosphere. The only place this reasoned discussion could take place is in academia.

   So what does this all all add up to? 10 different liberal positions debated endlessly in academia where all sides admit that there is no grounding for the views place into the world and while this is going in the neo-cons who basically live by ‘Contingeny, Irony and Solidarity’ march the nation to war, poverty and a cultural wasteland with 10,000 indidiviuals redescribing, under the sign of eternal veriities, events across the world and who do so because there is zip else to do because a cultural wasteland has been made.

   ‘The thought of Justice’ is remarkably silent about the basis of Democracy which is of course balance of powers. Sen presents a theory of Democracy where Demoracy is run along the lines of a roundtable which is clearly at best a very ivory tower view of Democracy. Of course the point of these discussions is not to get every one’s opinions and intersts but it is to shape opinions and interests. Democracy as discussion is the opening gambit of an literary crowd control measure. Sen seems to be recommeding the baby be split in tenths and basically the baby is no one’s baby so the baby is going to get split

   ‘The Thought of Justice’ is grounded by inferentialism, that there is no Agreed, no Presence. ( This is clearly fake. Presence is clear and certain.) Persons who keep moving debates back by coming up with new sets of reasons are going to loose all discussions, things just get more intricate and more arcane. With inferentialism there are no acceptable answers but only answers which are accepted and the answers which are accepted are a function of power relations.

   ‘A Theory of Justice’ is really secure from the ‘The Thought of Justice’. At worst ‘A Theory of Justice’ is the head of state example of real sustained reasoning, ‘one long argument’ in the last 50 years in political philosophy. Now of course free speech is vital but the point here is that free speech allows the one best plot to emerge and then hopefully this plot is ratified by voting. There are facts and not just competing interests where everyone is basically on target. France has a better health system than the US and that is flat out fact, for example. Now Professor Sen is clearly a very civilized individual and clearly personally liberal but ‘The Thought of Justice’ is recipe for liberal disaster.

   Of course civility is called for and of course one has to live with the fact that sometimes the vote goes against one but one has to stand up for the Truth which is Present. Of course in Congress there are votes and if the point of ‘The Thought of Justice’ is that all parties fail to get what is desired with voting this states what is already completely obvious. Voting has zip to do with truth or admitting that additional parties are building valid points which glide in the face of what one is propounding but only admits that adhering to a vote is the best workable solution. With transparent worthwhile earmarks the basics of bills can be maintained absent compromise and worthy bills still passed.

   ‘The Thought of Justice’ offers zip in the ways of Justice agreed that one is not actively engaged in public debate as I am not. All ‘The Thought of Justice’ tells indviduals standing by is to accept the budding confusion. ‘A Theory of Justice’ far from being transcendental on the additional hand is a book which one can read and which can guide one even if one is not involved in public discussion and, not to be scoffed at in any way, this is of course the main success of ‘The Theory of Justice’, to date.

   The ‘Powers That Be’ have permanently used the argument that the ‘plebians’ have to be kept down because doing menial tasks, effective the fields etc is what is in line with the ‘capabilities’ of the ‘plebians’. There is clearly zip inherently emancipatory about stressing cabablities. Down through all of history the argument has basically been used to repress. John Rawls stress on basic goods is, of course, emancipatory. ‘The Thought of Justice’ isn’t really directed at assisting disavantaged groups except as an afterthought as the last chapter makes clear. Clearly there is no group of people really addressing the capabilities of disadvantaqed indvdiuals outside of teaching settings and parenting and there is no real movement to do so. Thankfully people are addressing basics such as Bill Gates.

   Virtually ‘The Thought of Justice’ is directed at the capabiities of academics vis-a-vis a ‘Common Excellent’ which would be dictated rather than agreed to happily, so to speak, bypassing Arrow’s Impossiblity Theorem. Permanently with a Postmodernism such is offered here there is an exoteric anarchic ‘freewheeling’ component but permanently too there is an esoteric more totalitarian component which here would be service to a dictated ‘Common Excellent’. Permanently the ‘Common Excellent’ these days demands that the whole be hidden and really assisting people isn’t really required. On the ‘plus’ side one’s thoughts about the world can be fake, one can be ironic about one’s work, as the thoughts are being place forwards to hide the Whole but one must be clear that one has abandoned the scientific enterprise. People are addressed as unconcious automatons, zombies, and this has to be as the Whole must be hidden. What of course happens is rather than the Excellent being effected noise is inserted into the system. That an attempt is ongoing to hide the whole is not that huge a leap. For example there is zip chance that Rupert Murdoch believes much of what Glen Beck or Bill O’Riley blather on about. At the limit the ‘Common Excellent’ becomes a Hegelian negation of the West. Redescriptions of the work of academics who fail to use capabilities for the ‘Common Excellent’ is the enforcement tool. Another method used to indoctrinate academics is academics are basically ordered to take the ludicrous to heart for example academics have been trained to behold the individual as a robot the ‘I’ an illusion, consciousness an illusion, and the only way to escape this ludicrous result is to get with the political agenda of power wielding academics. That there is no temporal self is the latest nonsense that academics are being force fed with the only proposed escape hatch to get with the agenda. Counting the number of angels who can dance on a pin is up from where a lot of graduate ‘philosphy’ departments are today. Riding the rails must be better than being a graduate student in the ‘philosophy’ department of the University of Pittsburgh for example. ‘Cognitive philosophy’ is more or less a perfect disaster and ludicrous. Presence is of the physical. End of Tale. Attempting to get behind Presence is to enter the metaphysical so emlinative materialism etc etc is ludicrous. The neurobiological basis of Presence is researched everyday. Nobel Prizes have been won on the neurobiology of vision for example. There is no theoretical problem. The results are Present of course. Much of ‘cognitive philosophy’ is basically wedded to function. Contra Daniel Dennett an antievolutionarary theorist who has function everywhere in evolution function has no place in evolution at all of course. Function is Dennett’s way of sneaking Hegelianism into the discussion. Hegel was huge on past direction. Dennett is too. Like Dennett Hegel of course had a ‘design space’ in which the past stirred. Darwin was the fan of minute alterations that permanently made sense at that very time rather than the fan of evolution as driving toward some rational goal in the future, that is possessing a function. There is no function in evolution, no as if function either, no function at all. The goal of evolution is More now. Function is a koan in ‘cognitive philosophy’ and the answer is Hegel. Basically the attack on Presence, brought foward by Heidegger, has gone underground and anything which destabilizes Presence is now force fed to academics. The hiding of the Whole, the Forgetting of Being is the thought that is driving the West now. These people, neo-cons and neo-liberals do not have thoughts that are able to thrive in the light of day. That people are zombies by and large is the key thought one has to pick up on as only by treating people as zombies is the agenda hidden. Zombie mania has swept the West. The opinion over determinism aren’t about physics but rather about how people are to be treated. The selling point of determinism is that with determinism people are treated as zombies. What happens of course is as what is delivered via media news etc is open in terms of ’social science’ contructs and people become disorientated. The social science ‘unconcious’ is out in front of people, Present as nonsense. ‘Avatar’ provides an example of a social science contruct where allegedely people are being fundamentally reached but rather the pretty pictures and social science constructs are out front, Present, with the nonsense accepted because of the pretty pictures. The point, of course, of neo-liberal ‘artworks’ such as ‘Avatar’ isn’t to reach people fundamentally but rather to hide the Whole. There is no real attempt to control people for the better via unconcious manipulations, these people aren’t would be Hari Seldons, but rather the whole is to be hidden and all is to be place in turmoil and then tipping points are reached and the neo-liberals and neo-cons then attempt to push the US into a new configuration. The goal is to set up a crisis.

   Why the go to forget Being now? During the 20’s and 30’s Heidegger be alleged the mass well loved movements Nazi and Communism and concluded that the whole, had to be hidden from the ‘plebians’ or there would be these uncontrollable mass movements. Alternatively Heidegger was a morally defective human being. Heidegger of course never attempted to unconceal Being but permanently to hide Being, Stable Presence, from the West. Stable Presence inscription the Transcendent. Concealing Being was Heidegger’s project, all was to be demoted in the service of a hidden historicism, basically a hidden Hegelianism. Permanently with the unconcealment of Being comes some grasp of the Whole and such is anathema for the neo-cons. The West is now being treated for an illness it doesn’t have. The West is basically being bled by neo-cons and neo-liberals for an illness it doesn’t have. Nazi and Communism are forms of jihad, of course, but Democracy is far from being a jihad. And, of course, leaving the events to an elite few who work behind the scenes has never stopped a rush to disaster as all history attests to.

   What happens of course is that people become troubled with a loss of the Whole and are easily turned into a mob witness the teabaggers. When anxiety over the loss of the whole grows to such an extent a trigger such as a terrorist event will stampede the whole. The goal of neo-cons is when the tipping point comes to be there and redescribe events so the nation is pushed into a whole new configuration. The goal of neo-cons such as Leo Strauss was to give people having no effect lives by hiding the whole so the people could be pushed into new configurations. Neo-liberals are effective hand in hand with neo-cons in academia. The West is to be ruined with it’s principle of justice, which basically revolves around ameliorating disaster now, and as a replacement for the people are to live under the star of ’social science’. The neo-liberal capabilities approach is a mirage vis-a-vis assisting people, an aspect of the concealing of the Whole and the Forgetting of Being. Sounds well meaning but there is no weight to it, there is no capabilites approach.

   ‘The Thought of Justice’ wasn’t written to be persuasive, of course. The point of ‘The thought of Justice’ is to open a discussion where the goals of individuals with questions vis-a-vis ‘The Thought of Justice’ are worked on. The goal of the ‘The Thought of Justice’ is therapeutic and while in therapy the ‘therapist’ is going to keep silent about the ‘therapist’ and all talk by the ‘therapist’ about the goals of the ‘therapist’ verbotten. Rather than real discussion or conversation ‘therapy’ is the goal of the ‘The Thought of Justice’ and of course self analysis is verbotten. By definition the ‘therapist’ knows more about you than you. If one finds a gonzo ‘reflectivity’ is being pushed on one one is being punished. The goal here is the essential destruction of who you you are or for you to manifest an unwavering completely owned obediance to privileged ups with a willingness to lie with a pleased smile to hide the whole to let high neo-cons and neo-liberals proceed with the destruction of the West or both. Currently the dismemberment of Pakistan seems to be a goal of neo-cons and neo-liberals. See Christoper Hitchens on the neo-con side, for example. Hitchens is against the the Afghan surge. See various neo-liberals, Glen Greewald, for example who are for a ‘just place’ Afghansitanapproach. Greenwald and Hitchens are on the same page. With a collapsing Pakistan attendant on a resurrgent Taliban India has small choice but to attack Pakistan to stabilize the area and make sure the nuclear weapons of Pakistan are unused. A million Indian and Pakistanis killed is just another past blip for Hitchens, reasonably normal.

   You are expected to renovate tunnel vision. You are expected to accept an ‘I’ that is lessened. The you agreed to you isn’t you or a better grasping of you but rather a you that doesn’t see much but has a desire that fits in with the agenda of persons who give you your ‘I’. What does one get for this lessened ‘I’. One isn’t harrassed if one accepts the place that is agreed to one. There is no happieness or upholding of values. One escapes being bitched at. One bitches. One might very well be told one must advance the Disgust Culture, prevalent today. Absolutely a thousand different reasons are agreed to backup the ‘Disgust Culture’. You can obviously be a Republican Yuppie with a progressive lifestyle and make psycho videos trolling for anyone who is additional than a sane Yuppie Republican with a progressive lifestyle. The ’sane’ Republicans are trying to hide that there are supposedly sane sorts of Republicans which is hardly a mark of sanity. Or you can stupidly mock others indirectly on political sites under a pseudonym ‘Dickwad’ for example never addressing directly the target and fantasize about being in a movement, being a double agent for the opposite political agenda of which the website is supposededly all about, but of course you are of the Disgust Culture. 40,000 see the stupidity and only 20 see the stupid mockery. You can run a fake from the left perspective site which basically reports every blathering comment of Sarah Palin dissgusting liberals day after day. To liberals Sarah Palin isn’t news until she is in office or running for office. Why talk Palin up now? To disgust liberals. You can raise expectations and dash liberals expectations weekly by spinning the political news of the day thereby taking the steam out of a movement for change thereby disgusting liberals. You can present neo-cons as basically as the stupid denizens of politics but of course one thing is very certain neo-cons academics and media people who now basically direct the Repbublican Party are far from being stupid, reasonably willing to ruin the West but far from stupid. The picture painted of neo-cons by you is so far from the mark, so completely useless, that it has to disgust anyone who is attempting to take up the very real, serious dangers confronting the US. With you being a Democrat is like being on the Titanic and icebergs have been sited by indviduals supposedly protected by rationality. You are part of the Disgust Culture.You can poorly summarize poorly done social science papers fed to you, spin the papers this way and that, being real strategic though attempting to place only tiny nagging doubts, to the tune of 10 or so botched abstracts a day, week after week, month after month year after year. That has to disgust. In Hollywood you can make what is essentially Porkies 107 i.e. ‘Bachelor Party’. Of course, movies which have to disgust fundamentalists are made. Take ‘The Book of Eli’. It doesn’t fit into any sort of Christian worldview though it is centered around a Bible. The Bible is movie prop. That has to disgust. You can make small movies for Hollywood compadres and place over that the compadres are a lot Che Guevera say. That is clearly disgusting. Of course the thought for the movie was agreed to you by privileged ups as a small joke on you and the compadres. You and the compadres are attached to persons tiny movies. You and the compadres are now appparently trolling for ‘Gueverist’ hookers basically starlets on the make willing to make ’sacrifices’ for the fantastic cause and that is reasonably, reasonably disgusting. You have also painted a picture of you and the compadres as deranged. Privileged echelons are into a long drawn out ad about the horrors of liberalism, a reasonably disgusting ad, but of course you and the compadres are are not liberal but pseudo liberal. The audience can be told it is mentally ill as does ‘Shutter Island’. The style of the movie points to the ‘the government is experimenting with LSD’ rather than mental illness. Dicaprio didn’t look neuroleptic upped. Neuroleptics prevent motion sickness and neuroleptics which don’t cross the blood brain barrier are used to prevent seasickness but DiCaprio was seasick. There are no visual hallucinations in major mental illness. Sudden breaks in a biologically intact human being don’t engender visual hallucinations. Role playing is circa the 60’s rather than the 50’s. Via the ending individuals of the audience are told by Scorcese ‘maybe you are paranoid’. First what goes before doesn’t point to what seems to be the conclusion and second of all the ending only seems to answer the questions. Scorcese is clearly highly, highly overrated. Thomas Pynchon junked the greatest writing talent of the last half of the 20th century by such a tactic, by adage over and over again it is only paranoia, you are paranoid, i.e. people like the neo-cons have no larger plots going. The new meme in Hollywood is, is it there are not there? The ‘avante-garde’ has been trained to ‘appreciate’ movies where the ending is open finished. Presence is clear and certain and open finished movies attempt to destablize Presence by building all that went before misty. Now whole movies such as ‘Shutter’s Island’ and ‘Avatar’ are misty and this is again an attempt to destabilize Presence. ‘Avatar’ is an nearly perfectly disgusting movie. With Avatar enviromentalists really are just pro merging with the Planet Mother, all that temperture data is really beside the point. Global warming is just a dodge for the desire to unify with Planet Mother. That has to disgust liberals and environmentalists. On the additional hand ‘Avatar’ has military types as basically butchers and this while the US is involved in 2 wars with hundreds of thousands of troops overseas fighting for the US. That disgusts both conservatives and liberals. 3 lines could have disconnected the military on Pandora from the US military but persons 3 line were purposely not place in. Why all the movies about Planet Mother these days from the ghastly ‘Synedoche, New York’, in ‘Synedoche, New York’ one despairs after the loss of the powerful Planet Mother presence, to ‘Avatar’? The Hollywood intelligentsia is into fifth rate mythology see ‘Star Wars’ for example. That is one half of the tale. The additional half of the tale is that a neo-liberal ‘philosopher’ chose that at this time of life it was best to become ‘Planet Mother’. Hollywood now marches to the tune of a neo-liberal ‘philosopher’ who is the ‘Planet Mother’. Editing is all and style is substance in Hollywood. Hollywood has to be agreed some reason to justify the disgusting movies being made and giving the world a secret mythology, an Planet Mother mytholgy via movies was nearly surely the sales pitch to people like Spielberg. You could be told to place up thousands of reviews on Netflix that give glowing reviws to the most exploitive movies on Netflix. The disgusting has to be agreed a ‘perfume’ otherwise it will be rejected and you can help out there. You could become a professional movie critic. Movie critics spin reviews, the reviews never being about the movies but rather about hiding what is there so there is no revolt against the junk being produced by Hollywood. This disgusts. One can disagree with this if one can find a single movie critic who gives reviews on a regular basis of what one really sees in the movies. Movies critics are not tuned into a privileged aesthetic but rather have an agenda but frequently can write literately, which suggests a privileged asethetic, which sorry to say is not there. If all professional movie reviewing stopped tomorrow and this includes persons who post well on Netflix, (the top 3 reviews on any movie) the world would not be a better place but a much, much better place. That 90% of Hollywood movies can’t have much appeal to anyone over 15 has to disgust. For the movie critic Michael Medved, Mr. More PG, this bizarrely turns the culture in the right direction. Cartoons for children but really for adults such as ‘Wall-e’ has to disgust too. ‘Children are seeing that?! I am not at all sure I really am all for being viewed by the kiddies as stout obese pig who does zip and who has ruined the Planet.’ You can work to ruin science literacy by analogizing Science away penning works that are neither poetic or scientifc. ‘Science’ magazine has fallen for this. ‘Science’ seems convinced when talking of conveying science to the people that people are really all for space cadet explanations of scientific results. Basically it is some perspectives in ‘Science’, and then one falls off a cliff. Next stop ‘Star Wars’. You can join the Edge group and blather on about how transformative science is and place foward space admiral thoughts about science is going to transform the future. You can be a part of the dimming of the culture in the arts too. Look at Pynchon’s latest. Privileged ups are Hegelians and as all is to be negated, there is really zip there, so a dimmed down present is more veracious, closer to absolute zero which neo-cons and neo-liberals hold the Present to be. Or of course, you can find a puppet mouthpiece to make videos for the Internets make contact with people who have servers and then one is off. You are then bitching in the minor leagues and that is life. There is the temptation to troll ‘for’ multiple groups but when you get caught, neo-con and neo-liberal groups have competing non-reconciliasble interests at lower levels, the people who you were trolling ‘for’ turn on one, there and no party invites etc and one becomes useless to privileged echelons and there are no ‘words of wisdom’ from privileged echelons and basically you are dropped. Rough on the puppets too when you troll ‘for’ multiple groups as the puppets are being hit from all sides. There is permanently backlash from trolling and, of course, the puppets have point. You can attempt to train people, gays for example, to accept an iron fist from you with a book about how being wishy washy is the personification of being a conservative or being an antifundamentalist or some such dreck. You can lead secret trolling groups, whose being there is reasonably obvious to anyone after a year or so of being on the Internets, which have ruined public computer bulletin boards, pretending that you are shaping opinion but disgusting all who by mistake visit computer bulletin boards on occassion. There are weird people on the Web but no one is taking the abuse a disgusting but completely officially authorized video with 40,000 hits generates absent a support system which you can provide. This engders turmoil and sets up a crisis. You can work for News Corporation which works 24/7 for the destruction of the West. The whole point of of News Corporation is to generate disgust. News Corporation is sort of a fount of Disgust Culture. After watching Fox ‘Christians’ are disgusted that the sick and uninsured might get health care coverage just like Jesus would be or otherwise. Fox News is nearly like the Mecca of the Disgust Culture.

   You won’t be questioned to break any statutes. The destruction of the West is to be done by entirely statutory means. You will be questioned to cheer on a disastorous war for example the initial invasions of Iraq is 2003 for example but you most certainly won’t be questioned to commit terrorist acts, break any statutes etc. The most that you will be questioned to do is help with the passing of statutes so the destruction of the West grows closer for example statutues permitting torture, or be for huge deficits to break the safety net such as was done under Reagan and be for similiar types of legislation.

   Persons at the top get a Hegelian respect but at lower levels one bitches. It is a Ponzi scheme where persons at the top of the pyramid get respect and persons not more than bitch in the trenches to support persons at the top. The demand is made that one become a virtual zombie. One just delivers a speechifying which is line with an interest that is acceptable to privileged ups and that which is Present is ignored. Persons who treat others as virtual zombies become virtual zombies. Conciousness of that which is is present dims i.e. one becomes a virtual zombie. The key deal about the allowed interest is the interest will be a lie, a hiding of the whole. The world doesn’t become rich in mood for persons who sign up but of course, one is suppose to give a fake ‘pleased face’ emotional spin to the speechifying to hide the destructivenss. For example, one gets huge points for attempting in a supernice way to deconstruct very ancient Greek philosphy which is the glory of the West. Interests conflict for neo-cons and neo-liberals and goals are basically destructive as interests conflict fundamentally. Basically the interests are destructive and serve the interest of the hiding of the Whole rather than the obtaining of goals. The jollies of neo-cons and neo-liberals being virtual zombies are derived from from sliding up to persons with conciousness and partaking of that consciousness to get plaudits for ‘Avatar’ for example, the movie itself can give no satisfaction to Cameron. Virtual zombies basically attempt to ‘eat’ the conciousness of others. High neo-liberals and neo-cons completely eschew morality. All there are is fake interests and the essential goal ‘a new state system’ to replace what was the West. Moral speechifying is just a useful speechifying for neo-cons and neo-liberals, a way of hiding the whole. What is the proximate justification of the agenda? We want it. Neo-liberals are one with neo-cons on ‘Contingency, Irony and Solidarity.’ The essential justication of course is to worship the Hegelian Absolute, to be the universal solvent, to ruin the West. Basically the motivation is religious.

   The Noam Chomsky-Michael Moore line that ‘the powers that be’ are just attempting to accumulate more gold bars etc is a perfect no go. Most of these people are upper middle class to upper upper middle class and there is no chance of being super rich. This is accepted. Another point is the actions of the neo-cons and neo-liberals don’t serve corporations. A Medicare type solution is better for corporations as a whole eliminating one large headeache for the vast majority of corporations. Of course, Murdoch would not turn down another billion but the main point for Murdoch is to affect the world on a large scale to be at the center of the hurricane to gain a large respect. These people are reasonably willing to accept a secure but only affluent lifestyle as long as there are mountains of respect to go along with it. By and large these people would have have no problem, for example long-suffering the security – health care, salary etc that Noam Chomsky has achieved. Bill Kristol is not a wealthy individual, I assume, but syncophants make up for a lot with Kristol. ‘Syncophants’ is sorry to say accurate as neo-cons and neo-liberals being disordered must ‘eat’ the conciousness of individiduals with conconsiousness to thrive, being zombie-like full of a Present chaos, except for the goal of serving the Absolute via destroying the West. The ‘conciousness’ of syncophants gained via flattery provides ‘food’ for neo-cons and neo-liberals who march to the drum beat of a drum pounding from the far future. Synocophants are there to flatter exoteric personas, and are agreed goals with aporias which contribute to the large purpose of the neo-cons and neo-liberals. The works of Leo Strauss, clearly show Strauss as disordered. Strauss was permanently seeking syncophants to work on goals with aporias and a few who would work with Strauss on the destruction of the West. The weird mystery of Leo Strauss was that Leo Strauss was an absolutely and completely vicious individual and individuals who failed to flatter the exoteric personality of Strauss or questioned for fuller explanations of what Strauss was up to were viciously and unfairly attacked, sidewswipepd, whatever in any way via media, endlessly snarked etc via journals newspapers etc. These attacks were all backstabs of course. Strauss never openly confronted anyone. People were suppose to confabulate pleased tales of what Strauss was up to pleased tales which flattered Strauss’s exoteric personality. Today neo-cons and neo-liberals on the quick track are trained to be absolutely vicious via media, back stabbing up and down right and left and one must flatter basically mindlessly or else be bitched at beyond nearly belief. Strauss had contact with the Hegelians vis-a-vis Kojeve. When one runs with neo-cons and neo-liberals one is expected to give absolute respect to indviduals who are absolutely vicious. Another point that has to be made is that confabulating a position is additional than the demand. One has to confabulate positions that flatter individual neo-cons and neo-liberals (BFF in academia). There is no possiblity whatsoever of developing positions with any integrity. The main reward at lower levels is really not to be bitched at. This is sold as an ‘adventure in self’ but one has to deny the Present all for an imaginary future goal. One is trained to look away from the Disgust Culture made by neo-cons and neo-liberals and told to place on a pleased face and pretend that one is an advanced psychological being. You are expected to bitch, stab in the back, snark etc, but, of course, if running with a pack who bitch endlessly and viciously, if a nihlistic way of life is ‘your cup of tea’ then the lower ranks of neo-cons and neo-liberals might be a milieu suited for you. You bitch at individuals who support the West. You might argue ‘a lot of the bitching is really pointless except it brings the pack together. Also where can people go with the airwaves full of bitchery to escape the bithchery? We aren’t bitched at unless we look up. We bitch. It’s a recruitment tool.’ Points taken.

   Nothing here should be read as suggesting Professor Sen has has additional than high motives. The point is the thoughts in ‘The Thought of Justice’ don’t serve justice. People with high motives can advance poor theories, theories ready made to be highjacked by people with low motives. ‘The Thought of Justice’ is of a zeitgeist that unfavorable to justice but Professor Sen may be innocent.
   Reader’s Rating: 2 / 5
3. Efrain Gonzales says:

   April 27, 2010 at 4:16 am

   The new Sen’s book shed ligth on the exstensive and deep problem of justice. I will recommend to my colleagues and graduate students in Human Development.
   Reader’s Rating: 4 / 5
4. Ted the Slacker says:

   April 27, 2010 at 6:51 am

   “Identity and Violence” was close to the best book I have ever read, so I did not hesitate to pick up “The Thought of Justice” when it was published.

   As a non-philosopher, there were occasions when I battled. I don’t have a detailed grip of the various schools of thought on justice, and that meant my readings were going to be strained as I tried to follow Sen’s various opinion and counterarguments. And there were times when he lost me.

   But recalling this aspect of the book misses a larger point when you get to read the opinion offered by one of the fantastic thinkers of our time – you don’t need to get everything, arguably you don’t even need to get most of it, in order for the content to be enriching. That’s how persons of us who aren’t experts in Sen’s meadow need to approach this book. And on this aspect, I saw the structure of the book as reasonably helpful, in that each of the chapters concludes with a honestly accessible summing up of Sen’s thoughts. After wading though some dense argumentation, especially dense when you were absorbing the footnotes as well, it was invaluable to have something akin to an overview.

   But this still doesn’t answer the question of why a name who will find this a hard read should give it a go. Here’s why – Sen will prompt you to challenge your existing prejudices and dogmatism. We all hold particular beliefs about why certain things should be so, and Sen will prompt you to re-analyse them. In this case, it is on thoughts of fairness and justice, for which we all hold conscious (and subconscious) preconceptions and biases.

   This sounds terribly banal, but the reason to read Sen is that he teaches us to reflect. And the issue on which he is asking us to reflect here, could not be more fundamental and far-reaching.
   Reader’s Rating: 5 / 5
5. Adnan M. S. Fakir says:

   April 27, 2010 at 6:52 am

   Within the past month I was lucky enough to be able to meet with Amartya Sen thrice; at a talks, at a discussion and signing of his new book “The Thought of Justice,” and at a dinner where I was honored to be able to hold a long discussion with him. Here I will draw on my understanding of him and his theme to give a brief review of his new book, “The Thought of Justice.”

   One of the carried misconceptions that I want to point out in the beginning is that Sen is not a quote-and-quote hard boiled economist. Rather he is more of a philosopher of economic thought. As such most of his work carries inherent philosophies which can shake off the first readers. “The Thought of Justice” is entirely a building of philosophical ideologies as he draws on economic reasoning, current policies, laws and politics. One of the introductory examples Sen provides involves taking three kids and a flute. Anne says the flute should be agreed to her because she is the only one who knows how to play it. Bob says the flute should be handed to him as he is so poor he has no toys to play with. Carla says the flute is hers because it is the fruit of her own labor. How do we choose between these three legitimate claims?

   Sen argues that with the current system which follows policies and laws based on a search of a “just society” as place into the world by English Enlightenment Philosopher Thomas Hobbes and followed on by John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant and the contemporary most influential figure John Rawls (thereby regularly being referred to as the Rawlsian project; much of Sen’s critique is towards Rawls’ 1971 book, “A Theory of Justice”), there is no arrangement that can help us resolve this dispute in a universally accepted just manner. What really enables us to resolve the dispute between the three children is the value we attach to the pursuit of human fulfillment, removal of poverty, and the entitlement to delight in the products of one’s own labor.

   Who gets the flute depends on your philosophy of justice. Bob, the poorest, will have the immediate support of the economic egalitarian. The libertarian would opt for Carla. The utilitarian hedonist will bicker a bit but will eventually settle for Anne because she will get the maximum pleasure, as she can really play the instrument. While all three decisions are based on rational opinion and right within their own perspective, they lead to really different resolutions.

   The current system, Sen argues, revolves around an imaginary “social contract” where we are trying to make ideally just institutions assuming that people will comply with it. Sen identifies two major problems with this “arrangement all ears” or “transcendental institutionalism” approach. The first is a feasibility problem of coming to an agreement on the characteristics of a “just society;” the second a redundancy problem of trying to repeatedly identify a “just society.”

   What Sen proposes is a “realization-all ears” approach that “concentrates on the actual behavior of people, rather than presuming compliance by all with ideal behavior.” As a replacement for of focusing on an ideally just society which is influencing much of the recent political economy, Sen’s alternative focuses more on the removal of manifesting injustice on which we all rationally agree and the advancement of justice from the world as we see, as a replacement for of looking for perfection, which Sen points out, can never be attained.

   What makes Sen’s writing more appealing to me is how he correlates many previously nearly sadly unnoticed eastern ideologies with the western approaches, including persons of Kautliya, the Indian political economy and strategy writer now claimed to be the Indian Machiavelli (which is amusing because Kautliya was from the 4th century BC being compared to Machiavelli from the 15th century) and from early Indian Jurisprudence, namely the niti and the nyaya, to mention a few. Although Amartya Sen touches on these eastern topics as inspirational matters, I would be more satisfied if he had gone into more detail of their analysis in his book, “The Thought of Justice.”
   
   Reader’s Rating: 5 / 5