> Rawls certainly _is_ a pragmatist. And he certainly expressly rejects the
> view you attribute to him. He insists that once the project of reflective
> equilibrium is complete, at least provisionally, you can end up far from
> where started. For cites, see my piece, "Rights of Inequality" in Legal
> Theory from this spring.
>
> --jks
Ah. I didn't know one could be a neo-Kantian and a pragmatist, but I guess I don't see why not. However, I don't really think I misrepresented him. Squaring one's intuitions with each other might well lead one "far from where [they]" started, no? Thanks for the recommendation on you thesis. I'll try to track it down when I return to school.
-- Luke