Reviews for Nietzsche and Art

The average rating for Nietzsche and Art based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2007-10-24 00:00:00 Rebecca Smith Interesting critique of John Rawls work as set out in three key writings: Justice as Fairness (1958), Distributive Justice (1967) and A Theory of Justice (1971). In his introduction, Wolff aptly points out that: A Theory of Justice, by John Rawls, is an important book, but it is also a puzzling book. It is extremely long, and parts of it move very slowly. Rawls shifts repeatedly from the most sophisticated deployment of the formal methods of economics and mathematics to discussion of outdated topics, materials and references drawn from the ideal utilitarian, intuitionist and empirical psychological schools of English thought that flourished in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.According to Wolff, Rawls´s magnum opus, A Theory of Justice is best understood as evolving out of his previous writings as he attempts to extend his theory from just social practices to a just society and as he attempts to bolster and shield some of his key insights from increasing attack. Wolff starts by focusing on Rawls´s original bargaining game, intended to derive the principle that inequalities in a just practice can only arise if such inequalities benefit the worst-off members. Under Wolff´s meticulous game-theoretical analysis, Rawls´original bargaining game collapses. In order to recover some key insights, in the second form of his theory, Rawls introduces the device of a "veil of ignorance" and rewrites one of the original principles as the so-called "difference principle", but quickly realizes these ideas require much more elaboration,thus leading him to the third form of the theory. Wolff criticizes Rawls´ developments on three broad fronts: the game-theoretical front, an epistemological front (for example what does Rawls´"veil of ignorance" actually allow?, what do "extended liberties" mean...) and whether a distributive notion of justice can be developed independently of any sense of production. He also provides some interesting pointers to: Rawls´s explicit attempt to connect his moral theory to the philosophy of Kant...Wolff admires Rawls´architectural genius in erecting an inspiring edifice of thought even as he points out, what he believes are its sinking foundations and key structural weaknesses. Is Wolff right? Has he managed to throw down Rawls´s edifice? Quite frankly, I do not know - I can only intuit that there is more to Rawls A Theory of Justice than what Wolff topples and that Wolff´s objections are serious and need to be addressed.

Review # 2 was written on 2016-08-29 00:00:00 Molly M Gaitanoglou 'Organs Without Bodies' was an interesting and even entertaining read. However, if one expects this to be an in-depth commentary or critique on Deleuzian thought, prepare to be disappointed. The book rather seems to be a collection of essays that sometimes 'encounter' the thought of Deleuze, but other thinkers as well (such as Alain Badiou). Nonetheless, some of the ideas that Žižek develops in 'Organs Without Bodies' are quite inspiring and stimulating. Moreover, I found Žižek's reading of Deleuze to be very fruitful. He punctures and transforms Deleuzian lingo to his own advantage - something which Deleuze enjoys doing to other authors as well. Although this is probably very upsetting for a Deleuze-scholar ("This is all wrong!"), I found it daring and sometimes illuminating. In short, 'Organs Wihtout Bodies' is an interesting read. Although I would not deem this book to be of much use for academic purposes, I did find it inspiring and stimulating for the development of my own ideas. Take the book for what it is; don't burn it for what it's not.