> It's a very attractive idea, one that has dominated modern political
> philosophy for the 30 years since the publication of A Theory of Justice,
> and it is certainly deep and extraordinarily rich. I think it is wrong, but
> wrong the way the great philosophical ideas are wrong.
>
> jks
>
What you described sounds like humanism via "negative capability." Since we have no preconception of the "value" of the other, we must perforce grant them the humanity we grant ourselves. A new (old?) twist on the categorical imperative (and thus we get back to Habermas). But what is it that you think is wrong with the idea? Is it the negative construction? True humanism would consist not in blindness to the other but in recognition of their actual real human needs?
Peter Kosenko
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
-- ============================================================= Peter Kosenko Email: mailto:kosenko at netwood.net URL: http://www.netwood.net/~kosenko ============================================================= "Man is a rational animal. He can think up a reason for anything he wants to believe."--Benjamin Franklin