Common Sense, Judgment, and the Limits of Political Theory

In: Political theory: an international journal of political philosophy, Band 28, Heft 4, S. 565-588

Abstract

A review essay on books by (1) Samuel Fleischacker, A Third Concept of Liberty: Judgment and Freedom in Kant and Adam Smith (Princeton, NJ: Princeton U Press, 1999); (2) Ronald Beiner, Philosophy in a Time of Lost Spirit: Essays on Contemporary Theory (Toronto, Canada: U Toronto Press, 1997); (3) John G. Gunnell, The Orders of Discourse: Philosophy, Social Science, and Politics (Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998); (4) Murray Jardine, Speech and Political Practice: Recovering the Place of Human Responsibility (Albany: State U New York Press, 1998); (5) John Coates, The Claims of Common Sense: Moore, Wittgenstein, Keynes and the Social Sciences (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge U Press, 1996); & (6) Kenneth R. Hammond, Human Judgment and Social Policy: Irreducible Uncertainty, Inevitable Error, Unavoidable Injustice (New York: Oxford U Press, 1996). In reviewing these six books, it is argued that the ability to make good judgments in any given circumstance is favorably looked upon in both political & social life; threats to freedom of choice are heavily restricted. Fleischacker argues that judgment represents the main component of individual freedom. Though Fleischacker's claim that aesthetic judgment is a precondition for moral & political judgment is suspect, his work serves to authorize the restraint of government. Beiner does not necessarily focus on judgment; however, he utilizes judgment in his analysis of the limits of political theory & contends that what is needed today is an increase in the number of truly virtuous citizens. Gunnell argues that political theorists do not have a realistic view of their own influence. He also argues in support of "orders of discourse." What he fails to consider, however, is that the lines demarcating orders of discourse are not always clear. In contrast to Gunnell, Jardine suggests that both intellectuals & theorists are to blame for modern-day nihilism. Jardine's work, though stimulating, fails to persuade. Coates examines how the interwar Cambridge philosophers contributed to an understanding of common sense & ordinary language, focusing on the work of G. E. Moore, Ludwig Wittgenstein, & John Maynard Keynes. Hammond argues for the common area that exists between intuitive & analytic judgment. Unlike the other books, Hammond's is the work of a psychologist rather than a philosopher. Each of the books is due a favorable review. K. A. Larsen