On the Nature of Sweet: John Rawls' Response

See other posts in the "Is this sweet?" series.
See other posts in the "On the Nature of Sweet" series (more focused on the philosophy of sweetness).

This post features a guest author. Torey, a bona-fide Rawls scholar, has written a response to all this discussion on Sweet from the perspective of John Rawls:
Rawls: The subject of this brief response concerns arguments made in favor of various conceptions of sweetness. After carefully reviewing them all, I have found that all those engaged in the debate to date have made the same critical flaw. All have focused on a particular definition of sweetness affirmed by a particular worldview. For example, I do not think of huge explosions as sweet but I do agree that Jack from Lost with a beard is sweet. Others may disagree and offer entirely different views –crossword puzzles, Sarah Palin's folksy witticisms, nutella, etc. As I explained in Political Liberalism, in any pluralist society, such as our own, there will inevitably be an infinite number of comprehensive doctrines, or visions of what is sweet. It would be impossible to prioritize any one definition of sweetness over another, and any attempt to do so would be largely arbitrary. How can one possibly decide whether sweetness is George Bush choking on a pretzel or whether it is actually that goofy man in the park on the bicycle. The criteria involved in such an endeavor would inevitably involve evaluating the content of competing worldviews; a task which cannot be done in an impartial manner as it involves judging the veracity of deeply held believes. So the dilemma remains that what is sweet to one is not universally sweet in a plural society. Thus, sweetness becomes a metaphysical problem, a problem that can never be resolved in any satisfactory way through rational deliberation.

A firm case made for the utter subjectivity of Sweet, but Durkheim certainly takes issue.

Also, Rawls doesn't think of "huge explosions" as totally sweet? At this, I am utterly lost in despair and confusion.



Laughably absurd claptrap. Nothing more.

Andy said...

Now you sound like those Nobel Swedes whom you detest so much. This blog welcomes all viewpoints, including Rawls' ridiculous notion that explosions aren't sweet.

leaves n' leavin said...

but the REAL question becomes: is cultural relativism sweet? i'd say "no" but i think it should be explored more closely.

Terena said...

Keep up the good work.

  © Blogger template Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP