Deweyan Democracy and the Rawlsian Problematic
A Reply to Joshua Forstenzer
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11524898 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Robert B Talisse (0000-0002-0599-3895, corresponding author), Robert B Talisse Robert B Talisse |
| Year | 2017 |
| Volume | 53 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 579-579 |
| Publication date | 2017-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Transactions of the Charles S Peirce Society (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0009-1774 • E-ISSN: 1558-9587 |
| Publisher | Indiana University Press (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.2979/trancharpeirsoc.53.4.04 |
| OpenAlex | W2791424508 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 2 |
In “Deweyan Democracy, Robert Talisse, and the Fact of Reasonable Pluralism,” Joshua Forstenzer defends Deweyan democracy against my argument that it fails an intuitive test for political legitimacy proposed by John Rawls. In this brief reply, I argue that although Forstenzer offers an attractive interpretation of Deweyan democracy, his defense nonetheless does not succeed, but arguably exacerbates the original difficulty
Argument (complex analysis · Democracy · Epistemology · Interpretation (philosophy · Law and economics · Legitimacy · Pluralism (philosophy · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Chemistry · Critical Theory and Philosophy · Law · Philosophy · Philosophy, Science, and History · Pragmatism in Philosophy and Education
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |