« On Vindictive Referees | Main | Rawls, Paul's Transformative Experience, and Life plans. »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Charles Blattberg

Excellent post! I take it that, adopting Bernard Yack's distinction (https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/philosophy-between-the-lines-the-lost-history-of-esoteric-writing/) between the more common, mild form of esoterism and that rare form in which the writer conceals an argument that's a subversive counter to the exoteric one, you would agree that Rawls never comes close to doing the latter? Otherwise put: he's consistently serious, rather than ironic or playful, about his explicit claims.

Eric Schliesser

Hi Charles,
Yes, I think there is an important distinction between an esoteric doctrine that opposes the public one, and those that may add something to their exoteric arguments. (I wouldn't call that 'mild' always.) I have no evidence that Rawls is concealing his views in the former way.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Here's a link to my past blogging (and discussions involving me) at: New APPS.


Blog powered by Typepad