Reading Notes 2017.10.21

# An unlikely triumph by David Labaree.
美國許多 college 設在偏僻小鎮,因為原本就是為了炒新開發區地皮而設。大學部學費是主要收入來源,所以課程不能太難,要讓學生開心,與社區民眾及校友維繫感情,經營球隊是方法之一, populism。

# From BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation by Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor
很久沒讀這種論述性質的東西了。我關心的問題:階級與種族兩線上的運動為何分裂,又如何可能聯合,作者也關心,但只是輕描淡寫地穿插提及。一來,本書的主題固不在此吧,二來,作者始終停留在論述層次,不在意將論述轉譯成經驗命題 (例如,哪些白人工人有強烈的種族主義傾向?為甚麼?),也不試圖從經驗分析中尋求支持。


Reading Notes 2017.05.31

Contemporary Approaches to the Social Contract, by D'Agostino, Gaus, and Thrasher (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
    1. 古典的社會契約論重視 consent-obligation。當代契約論重視 the problem of justification: what social arrangements we can all accept as “free persons who have no authority over one another” (Rawls 1958, 33).
    2. Contractarian (Hobbesian/reductionist/why be moral) 與 Contratualist (Kantian/non-reductionist/what sorts of moral or political principles meet certain basic moral demands) 兩類理論。
    3. 如果 agents 的異質性太高,可能出現 indeterminacy/equilibrium selection 問題。
    4. Hobbes 以野蠻狀態對照社會契約。當代理論家的另一種論法是社會契約 vs 現狀,或將契約分為兩階段,constitutional 與 post-constitutional。
    5. 共識之形成機制: bargaining; aggregation; EGT equilibrium.
---順帶一提,如這段分析指出,Kant's categorical imperative 只是 symmetric game 的結果,難擴展至 asymmetric 情況。包括 Rawls 在內的一些社會契約論者似也有相同問題。



Reading Notes 2017.05.14

---逝世八十年后,葛兰西如何帮我们理解当代政治 by 张跃然 骆斯航 

---意外讀到一篇特別的書評:“Original Sin”? Revising the Revisionist Critique of the 1963 Operation Coldstore in Singapore by Kumar Ramakrishna, Singapore, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2015, vii + 167 pp. by Michael D. Barr


Comments on Postone's Time, Labor, and Social Domination

Dear A,

Thanks for introducing me the book by Moishe Postone. I had read the third part of the book, Toward a reconstruction of the Marxian critique: capital. Since I am more interested in his own understandings and implications of his own analyses, I skip the first two parts. Overall it is a good book. But I can’t say that I love it. Most arguments of Postone are familiar to me in one way or the other, and I have been skeptical about them. I do like his argument for the possibility against actuality. But unfortunately he does not clarify the conditions or obstacles for it very much. Below I will outline his three major arguments, and then spell out my critiques or thoughts related to them.