Comment posted Dissertation Prospectus by Geoffrey Allan Plauche.
Thanks. 
)
I’m going to stick to the current outline for now and see what happens. It may turn out that his comments, criticisms, suggestions, etc., require me to expand some parts at the expense of others.
The most expendable chapter is number 7, but I feel it needs to be in there in order to explain to people who are unfamiliar with the literature how a stateless society might provide goods and services it is currently thought must be provided by the state.
The other chapter he’s ambivalent about is number 6, the one on free markets and free enterprise, but I feel that one is necessary because not only communitarians but most critics of liberalism are critical of markets. Even conservatives have a love/hate relationship with it.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche also commented
- If you do discuss Walzer and you want it to be his thoughts on the liberalism/communitarian debate then check out his chapter in the Appendix of the book “Politics and Passion: Towards a More Egalitarian Liberalism” and the chapter in that book is titled “The Communitarian Critique of Liberalism.” I’m not very familiar with the debate myself.
Best of luck,
SK
p.s. do you plan on following Eubank’s editorial advice or not or are you going to play it by ear with him for a while and see if any further reasons develop to edit it one way or another? - Thanks!
It is ambitious, yes. I think Dr. Eubanks would prefer it if I dropped a chapter or two and expanded the others.
I don’t know whether I will discuss Walzer or not. I have plenty of reading to do as it is!
No, our LSU professors were not responsible for my research interests…at least not directly. Taking classes with them (especially Sandoz and Eubanks) arguably helped me to realize the value and importance of Aristotelian liberalism though. I’ve done a lot of outside reading on various subjects from libertarianism to law to psychology to economics. Economics in particular I think every political philosopher should understand fairly well before making advocating any kind of ideal regime or government policies. - Congratulations on a successful defense. The paper is ambitious and covers a lot of ground. You mention Michael Walzer and Sandel as communitarian. You cite Sandel’s works in your bibliography but not Walzer. Do you plan on critiquing Walzer in passing (as part of a group) or does he play a more specific role in your critique. Lastly, were LSU professors responsible for your research interests? It seems that most of the readings you have been doing are not exactly seminar reading material.
Best wishes,
SK
Recent comments by Geoffrey Allan Plauche
- Progressive Egalitarians Should Be Anti-IP
[...] at Is-Ought GAP. Geoffrey is an Aristotelian-Liberal political philosopher and an adjunct instructor for Buena [...] - Imperial Doublespeak About Iraq
RT @gplauche: New blogpost: Imperial Doublespeak About Iraq | http://bit.ly/cU2S1O - Imperial Doublespeak About Iraq
[...] at Is-Ought GAP. Geoffrey is an Aristotelian-Liberal political philosopher and an adjunct instructor for Buena [...] - Voting, Moral Hazard, and Like Buttons
[...] Cross-posted at Is-Ought GAP. [...] - Congressman Assaults Student on Washington Sidewalk
[...] Congressman Assaults Student on Washington Sidewalk (veritasnoctis.net) [...]
powered by SEO Super Comments
Political Science PhD
{ 4 comments }
Congratulations on a successful defense. The paper is ambitious and covers a lot of ground. You mention Michael Walzer and Sandel as communitarian. You cite Sandel’s works in your bibliography but not Walzer. Do you plan on critiquing Walzer in passing (as part of a group) or does he play a more specific role in your critique. Lastly, were LSU professors responsible for your research interests? It seems that most of the readings you have been doing are not exactly seminar reading material.
Best wishes,
SK
Thanks!
It is ambitious, yes. I think Dr. Eubanks would prefer it if I dropped a chapter or two and expanded the others.
I don’t know whether I will discuss Walzer or not. I have plenty of reading to do as it is!
No, our LSU professors were not responsible for my research interests…at least not directly. Taking classes with them (especially Sandoz and Eubanks) arguably helped me to realize the value and importance of Aristotelian liberalism though. I’ve done a lot of outside reading on various subjects from libertarianism to law to psychology to economics. Economics in particular I think every political philosopher should understand fairly well before making advocating any kind of ideal regime or government policies.
If you do discuss Walzer and you want it to be his thoughts on the liberalism/communitarian debate then check out his chapter in the Appendix of the book “Politics and Passion: Towards a More Egalitarian Liberalism” and the chapter in that book is titled “The Communitarian Critique of Liberalism.” I’m not very familiar with the debate myself.
Best of luck,
SK
p.s. do you plan on following Eubank’s editorial advice or not or are you going to play it by ear with him for a while and see if any further reasons develop to edit it one way or another?
Thanks.
)
I’m going to stick to the current outline for now and see what happens. It may turn out that his comments, criticisms, suggestions, etc., require me to expand some parts at the expense of others.
The most expendable chapter is number 7, but I feel it needs to be in there in order to explain to people who are unfamiliar with the literature how a stateless society might provide goods and services it is currently thought must be provided by the state.
The other chapter he’s ambivalent about is number 6, the one on free markets and free enterprise, but I feel that one is necessary because not only communitarians but most critics of liberalism are critical of markets. Even conservatives have a love/hate relationship with it.
Comments on this entry are closed.