<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for N. Page</title><link>http://disqus.com/people/c7a3098887dc37f5046a22db7fd5ceb3/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:17:28 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: More on Hayek/Rawls Fusionism</title><link>http://willwilkinson.disqus.com/more_on_hayekrawls_fusionism/#comment-3707503</link><description>"it very psychologically difficult to deal with criticism of his work (he admits as much in one of the rare interviews he gave in his life) and perhaps even discouraged such criticism among his students"&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;This is wrong.  Prof. Rawls's was in search of accurate criticism.  A lot of the criticism misinterprets his work.  In fact, the question from this blog -- what were his politics? -- is the wrong question.  Prof. Rawls was a professional philosopher who wrote with rigor and understood himself to be continuing in the tradition of classical liberalism.  For Rawls, the question of how TJ fits in with capitalism is an interesting as-applied question that was the subject of many papers.  He was not a polemicist adopting a philosophy to reach a political result.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;As a point of philosophy and a point of fact, TJ is completely consistent with modern Western capitalism.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;As a point of politics, a lot of lesser academics tried to make a name for themselves by twisting TJ into a political tract and then debunking the supposed tract.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I found Prof. Rawls to be open to all criticism and to be especially grateful -- if not relieved -- to receive accurate criticism.  It's lonely at the top, and it is hard to find very great criticism of his very great work.  A fact he handled with some grace.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;He was, in short, polite about being misunderstood and tried to take a higher, long-run view.  I am sure he would think the question of what political theory he was secretely espousing in TJ is the wrong question.  He was a confidant man who could have written a direct political tract if he had wanted to do that.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The lesson for today that he followed was generally to be polite and not complain about being misunderstood and misappreciated.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;"We are all our riches, love, and fame denied.&lt;br&gt;I take my incompleteness with the rest.&lt;br&gt;God Bless Himself, can no one else be blessed."&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;/R. Frost, "The Lesson for Today"</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">N. Page</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:17:28 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>