'm bad reader. A lot. And to top it off, a few years now has led me to prefer the philosophy of the novel, short story or poetry. I still love, but I read less. And
philosophy that almost did not read because I did not understand, now it happens that attracts me a lot. Not all philosophy [you still have the religious Asquith, for example, that in no way seems to me philosophically, in fact makes me poor people supposed to talk about philosophy is to talk about religion, or worse, talk about God , or worse, the Christian God, or worse, of its version of a Christian God].
My philosophy seriously interested me when I read Kant. And I did not understand, clear [at least not completely], but the challenge that to understand the categorical imperative was an echo effect on my [or domino or butterfly effect, say to model].
Understanding Kant was first necessary to understand Descartes, a bit like Aristotle and a little more. But then Kant led me to other philosophers, I read lately, say, and also I can not understand.
All this comes up because I have a few days trying to read "Equality and Partiality," by Thomas Nagel and before I read "If You Are Equal, How come you are so rich?" By Gerald Cohen. As I understand it, both books are planned [separate media, of course, but in academic circles more or less close] 10-15 years ago.
The two books of both authors are part of the legacy of John Rawls indirect philosophy policy. In all three cases [the two books mentioned and all of Rawls's work, but remarkably his "Theory of Justice"], the intention is to discuss the potential ethical equality in contexts such as contemporary societies.
Cohen's book is not really so difficult to me [except in very few and specific paragraphs], because it is the collection of lectures. But it's Tim Nagel, yes. I do not understand. Too much for me. And it frustrates me [not as much as Heidegger, Habermas and Kant himself, but beyond me. Quite].
Leo and read, but do not understand. And as I understand, soon escapes me understanding and I am empty again. At times like this I give up and drop almost novels. But no, I never liked to make things easy on easy or because they have no choice. I like doing what I like, albeit difficult and thus can not [and often is difficult and I can not handle it].
while ago I decided to give me two hours of continuous, dedicated specifically to understand two paginitas the book that stuck with me since day before yesterday. I ran [at 14:00 exactly] to a cafe nearby. No one was looking, not to be distracted in any way.
I opened the book and began to read, reread and reread. And nothing. I ran two hours and I had to return without success. [May one day I can return to this post and say that I could understand the text].
This part, in particular, still leaving me perplexed
philosophy that almost did not read because I did not understand, now it happens that attracts me a lot. Not all philosophy [you still have the religious Asquith, for example, that in no way seems to me philosophically, in fact makes me poor people supposed to talk about philosophy is to talk about religion, or worse, talk about God , or worse, the Christian God, or worse, of its version of a Christian God].
My philosophy seriously interested me when I read Kant. And I did not understand, clear [at least not completely], but the challenge that to understand the categorical imperative was an echo effect on my [or domino or butterfly effect, say to model].
Understanding Kant was first necessary to understand Descartes, a bit like Aristotle and a little more. But then Kant led me to other philosophers, I read lately, say, and also I can not understand.
All this comes up because I have a few days trying to read "Equality and Partiality," by Thomas Nagel and before I read "If You Are Equal, How come you are so rich?" By Gerald Cohen. As I understand it, both books are planned [separate media, of course, but in academic circles more or less close] 10-15 years ago.
The two books of both authors are part of the legacy of John Rawls indirect philosophy policy. In all three cases [the two books mentioned and all of Rawls's work, but remarkably his "Theory of Justice"], the intention is to discuss the potential ethical equality in contexts such as contemporary societies.
Cohen's book is not really so difficult to me [except in very few and specific paragraphs], because it is the collection of lectures. But it's Tim Nagel, yes. I do not understand. Too much for me. And it frustrates me [not as much as Heidegger, Habermas and Kant himself, but beyond me. Quite].
Leo and read, but do not understand. And as I understand, soon escapes me understanding and I am empty again. At times like this I give up and drop almost novels. But no, I never liked to make things easy on easy or because they have no choice. I like doing what I like, albeit difficult and thus can not [and often is difficult and I can not handle it].
while ago I decided to give me two hours of continuous, dedicated specifically to understand two paginitas the book that stuck with me since day before yesterday. I ran [at 14:00 exactly] to a cafe nearby. No one was looking, not to be distracted in any way.
I opened the book and began to read, reread and reread. And nothing. I ran two hours and I had to return without success. [May one day I can return to this post and say that I could understand the text].
This part, in particular, still leaving me perplexed
"What does the standard of reasonable rejection morally permitted to be subjected to real contrast the legitimacy of a system that is different from rejection based only on a higher influence and an unmodified self-interest? We know that the intrusion of a moral element is not directly political, in the process of justification could be avoided by bringing fairness to a position of complete control, but fortunately that's not the only way. While the attitude of impartiality, which is the first consequence of the point of view, plays an important role in determining any acceptable result must also be adjusted in some way to the point of view, looking for principles that recognize the importance of those goals in life each person, and to determine how much weight they should be attributed in general "
Thomas Nagel Equality and Partiality
0 comments:
Post a Comment