My latest publication: ‘Statism and Distributive Injustice in Adam Smith’

My paper ‘Statism and Distributive Injustice in Adam Smith’ has just been published as a chapter in New Perspectives on Distributive Justice: Deep Disagreements, Pluralism, and the Problem of Consensus (De Gruyter, November 2018), edited by Manuel Andreas Knoll, Stephen Snyder and Nurdane Şimşek. €109.95/$126.99/£100 for eBook (EPUB and PDF)  and hardback formats.

Paper  abstract                                                                                                                                  This paper seeks to displace contemporary “progressive” attempts to bring Adam Smith into the fold of thinkers who support a form of state intervention favouring the welfare of its poorest members through distributive justice. The paper argues that despite the validity of pointing to Smith’s support of those at the lowest economic level, it never amounts to redistribution of wealth, especially to the poorest. The state structure Smith proposes does favour those with the most at stake in maintaining a stable political structure. The paper argues that the real and genuine concern Smith shows for the poorest element, would be supported by the state through the development of a legal system that would prevent or hinder the bad behaviour of the upper classes and state craft that promotes broader economic development while promoting the better virtues of societies wealthier members. Though there are distributive elements of Smith’s theory that favours the poor, they tend to be measures that prohibit attempts at distribution that could end up harming the poor. Thus, there is no basis for the assertions of egalitarian liberals who see in Smith’s work support for state sponsorship of an ideal formula for resource distribution.

Screenshot 2018-11-24 at 07.51.23


Introduction: Two Opposing Concepts of Distributive Justice

Part I: Deep Disagreements

Manuel Knoll
Deep Disagreements on Social and Political Justice: Their Meta-Ethical Relevance and the Need for a New Research Perspective

Ulrich Steinvorth
Are There Irreconcilable Conceptions of Justice? Critical Remarks on Isaiah Berlin

Michael Haus
Equality Beyond Liberal Egalitarianism: Walzer’s Contribution to the Theory of Justice

Giovanni Giorgini
Stuart Hampshire and the Case for Porcedural Justice

Bertjan Wolthuis
Public Reason in Circumstances of Pluralism

Manuel Knoll/Nurdane Şimşek
Does Rawls’ First Principle of Justice Allow for Consensus? A Note

Part II: Ancient Perspectives and Critiques of the Centrality of Justice

Francisco L. Lisi
Aristotle on Natural Right

Eckart Schütrumpf
What is “Just in Distribution” in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and Politics – Too Much Justice, Too Little Right

Christoph Horn
Justice in Ethics and Political Philosophy: A Fundamental Critique

Chandran Kukathas

Part III: The Problem of Consensus

Alberto L. Siani
Rawls on Overlapping Disagreement and the Problem of Reconciliation

Chong-Ming Lim
Public Reason, Compromise within Consensus and Legitimacy

Ulrike Spohn
From Consensus to Modus Vivendi? Pluralistic Approaches to the Challenge of Moral Diversity and Conflict

Manon Westphal
What Bonds Citizens in a Pluralistic Democracy? Probing Mouffe’s Notion of a Conflictual Consensus

Michal Rupniewski
Citizenship, Community, and the Rule of Law: With or Without Consensus?

Peter Caven
Political Liberalism: The Burdens of Judgement and Moral Psychology

Part IV: Expanding the Perspective on Obligations

Angela Kallhoff
John Rawls and Claims of Climate Justice: Tensions and Prospects

Annette Förster
Assistance, Emergency Relief and the Duty Not to Harm – Rawls’ and Cosmopolitan Approaches to Distributive Justice Combined

Bill Wringe
Collective Global Obligations, Just International Institutions and Pluralism

Stephen Snyder
Intergenerational Justice in the Age of Genetic Manipulation

Part V: Diversifying the Perspective

Kok-Chor Tan
The Contours of Toleration: A Relational Account

Chad Van Schoelandt/Gerlad gaus
Constructing Public Distributive Justice: On the Method of Functionalist Moral Theory

Elena Irrera
Respect as an Object of Equal Distribution? Opacity, Individual Recognition and Second-Personal Authority

Maria Dimitrova
Responsibility and Justice: Beyond Moral Egalitarianism and Rational Consensus

Tom Bailey
Habermas’ and Rawls’s Postsecular Modesty

Part VI: The Difference Principle

Peter Koller
A Defence of the Difference Principle beyond Rawls

Aysel Demir
Marxist Critiques of the Difference Principle

Part VII: The Economic Perspective: Adam Smith

Jeffrey Young
Justice, Equity, and Distribution: Adam Smith’s Answer to John Rawls’s Difference Principle

Barry Stocker
Statism and Distributive Injustice in Adam Smith


My latest book: Philosophy of the Novel


Philosophy of the Novel (Palgrave Macmillan/Springer, 2018) is now available as an ebook from the publisher. Go to either the Palgrave Macmillan page or the SpringerLink page. Palgrave Macmillan is now part of the German based Springer Nature group, though continuing to have its own editorial offices in London. Judging by my experience, production is now integrated at the group level. The US Macmillan operation now has no relation with Palgrave Macmillan.

The book can be downloaded in pdf or epub formats. The ebook is not yet available from Amazon or any other online bookstore. Maybe this will come when the hardback appears in print next month. It is now available for preorder. The ebook is €74 and the hardback will be €95.

The hardback is available for pre-order from Amazon. £80 from Amazon UK. $110 from Amazon US. €102 from Amazon France. €96 from Amazon Germany €122 from Amazon Italy. €94 from Amazon Spain. R$395 from Amazon Brazil₹8 6041 from Amazon India.


Chapters and Information from Publisher’s webpages. 

(I will try to add other ways of explaining and introducing the book over the next few weeks)

This book explores the aesthetics of the novel from the perspective of Continental European philosophy, presenting a theory on the philosophical definition and importance of the novel as a literary genre. It analyses a variety of individuals whose work is reflected in both theoretical literary criticism and Continental European aesthetics, including Mikhail Bakhtin, Georg Lukács, Theodor Adorno, and Walter Benjamin. Moving through material from eighteenth century and ancient Greek philosophy and aesthetics, the book provides comprehensive coverage of the major positions on the philosophy of the novel. Distinctive features include the importance of Vico’s view of the epic to understanding the novel, the importance of Kierkegaard’s view of the novel and irony along with his other aesthetic views, the different possibilities associated with seeing the novel as ‘mimetic’ and the importance of Proust in understanding the genre in all its philosophical aspects, relating the issue of the philosophical aesthetics of the novel with the issue of philosophy written as a novel and the interaction between these two alternative positions.

1. Introduction. From Analysis to Form

This chapter investigates major aesthetic approaches to the philosophy of the novel and develops distinct approaches to be used in the book. The distinction between Analytic and Continental European philosophical approaches is established. The Analytic approach is largely explored with reference to Peter Lemarque. Its limitations are defined through a discussion of Lemarque’s approach to Roland Barthes as a literary critic. The nature of ethics and literature as an approach to the novel is identified and its limitations are discussed. Martha Nussbaum is selected as an example of ethical philosophical criticism at its best. Her approach and its limitations are discussed in relation to poetics, erotics and ethics, focusing on her reading of Jacques Derrida.

2. Epic in Aristotle and Vico

Epic is discussed as a forerunner to the novel. Aristotle’s comments on Homeric epic in the Poetics and Rhetoric are fully explored, to establish a view of what epic is and its relation to public forms of speech. Giambattista’s New Science is discussed with regard to its philosophy of history, its account of poetry and the central role it gives to Homeric philosophy. This is discussed as partly the product of a growing novelistic culture in Vico’s time and as applying to main aspects of the novel including its relation both to epic discourse and the more variable discourse of everyday life.

3. Idealism and Romanticism

The literary aesthetics of the eighteenth century is discussed with regard to the growth of the novel as a literary genre, noting it that is not incorporated much into aesthetics. It is in the late eighteenth century that Romantic philosophers such as Friedrich Schlegel begin to develop a philosophy of the novel based on its appeal to subjectivity and unstable perspectives, summed up in the term ‘irony’. Hegel’s reaction to Schlegel and less elevated role for the novel is explored along with related aspects of his literary aesthetics. This chapter then covers the role of nature, particularly as known to chemistry as a model for understanding and appreciating the novel, or at least setting up the possibility of doing so.

4. Kierkegaard, Irony and Subjectivity

Søren Kierkegaard is discussed as the first philosopher to develop an understanding of the novel at length. Four of his texts are considered: From the Papers of One Still Living, The Concept of Irony, Either/Or, A Literary Review. The first is considered for its account of Danish novels in a world of unpredictability and subjectivity. The second is considered for its view of Socratic irony and dialogue, Romantic irony and novels, along with Hegel’s criticisms. The third is considered for its accounts of tragedy and opera, as deeply connected with novelistic aesthetics, as well as the Romantic novelistic structure of Either/Or. The fourth is discussed for its view of the place of the novel in the political and social understanding of the time.

5. Lukács on Subjectivity and History (Introduced Through Nietzsche)

The chapter begins with what Nietzsche contributes to the philosophy of his novel through his remarks on Stendhal and Dostoevsky, along with his view of how the novel emerges from the death of tragedy in antiquity. These thoughts are considered as what opens the way for Lukács. Lukács is mostly considered for his Romantic work on the novel, though his Marxist phase is also considered. His view of the novel as a fall from epic unity between individual, and the world is emphasised along with other historical aspects.

6. Bakhtin, Ethics and Time

Bakhtin is discussed with regard to the antique and medieval precursors for the novel, pluralism of voices, carnival, temporal analysis and approach to Dostoevsky. François Rabelais is discussed as the source of the transformation of the carnivalesque into novel. The ethical and political aspects of Bakhtin’s commitment to plurality of voices and registers are considered. The relation of his literary analysis with his view of the distinction between Orthodox and Catholic churches is discussed, along with his Russian populist leanings

7. Mimesis, Humanism and Time

Erich Auerbach is considered as a theorist of mimesis and of the decline of Europe, influenced by Vico. His more humanist view is compared with the anti-humanism of Walter Benjamin and Theodor Adorno, to the extent that they see the current civilisation as doomed and lacking in ideals. This Marxist view is compared with more conservative and liberal views of the growth of state power. Adorno and Benjamin are compared as more nihilistic and more religious thinkers. Their views of the nineteenth- and twentieth-century novel are discussed.

8. Mimetic Limits. Desire, Death and the Sacred

This chapter looks at how French writers of the mid-twentieth century take mimesis away from the centre of the novel. Georges Bataille puts ‘evil’ at the centre, that is the breaking of social habits to reach some deep level of desire which is enacted rather than represented. Maurice Blanchot puts death and meaninglessness at the centre of the novel, which drifts towards and between moments of emptiness and extinction. René Girard has a more Christian Huımanist view of the dangers of mimetic desire and violence, which may be resolved by moments of transcendence. The more violent and apocalyptic aspects of his views are also explored. Finally, the chapter considers how French anti-mimeticism is taken up by Jacques Lacan, Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida.

9. The Absolute Novel. Proust on Lost Time

Marcel Proust’s river novel, In Search of Lost Time, is considered as anovel of absolutes as advocated by the Romantics. The consideration of Proust both as a philosophically interested writer and as the object of an enormous amount of philosophical attention. How Proust’s transcendental aesthetic subjectivity connects with historical, national and European consciousness through memory. His place in the history of literature and how he writes as someone located in the history of literature always concerned with other kinds of history. The specific place of his writing in Third Republic France and the political interpretation of this include the movement from aristocratic to democratic worlds.

10. The Philosophical Novel

How the novel and philosophy may become the same and the limitations on such hopes. After a survey of examples, the chapter focuses on James Joyce’s relationship with Vico and Homer (continuing considerations in Chap.  2), Joyce’s relationship with Kierkegaard, Jane Austen’s relationship with ethics and Austen’s indirect relationship with Kierkegaard. The chapter considers both how the most obviously literary philosophical and philosophical literary works may be considered from a philosophical novel perspective, but also how a less obviously philosophical writer like Austen is full of philosophical insights. This continues considerations in the introduction on how ethics and the novel may be related.


Economic Liberalism and (Re)Building Europe after WWII.

Reposted from Notes On Liberty

Opening paragraphs

It is important to understand that economic recovery and growth in Europe after World War II is not as tied to Keynesianism, unfunded welfarism, and corporatism as is sometimes assumed.

The Glorious Thirty Years of European recovery from world war and subsequent growth were not due to ‘Keynesianism’ etc. The Thirty Years ended because the influence of liberal policies had weakened and the costs of other policies had accumulated to create an obviously dysfunctional system. Left-wingers (and communitarian-corporatist conservatives) who think ‘market fundamentalists’ overthrew a well functioning social and economic settlement which was behind all the economic growth and associated institution building (post-war national recovery and European Union construction) are in error. It is a major error to ignore the influence of Austrian School liberals (see the discussion by a leading current practitioner of Austrian economics, Peter Boettke) and the related Ordoliberalismus of the Freiburg School.

My remarks on what the major terms and schools in this paragraph refer to have become uncontrollably long, so they are relegated to the bottom of the post. I hope readers will have the patience to reach them.

The key points are that the German post-war Economic Miracle came from Ordo-liberal policies, while economic growth in France after Charles de Gaulle came to power for the second time in 1958 comes from the policies of Jacques Rueff, a civil servant, judge, and economist who participated in the 1938 Walter Lippmann Colloquium in Paris, a decisive event in the revival of liberal economic thinking attended by Hayek and many other notable liberal thinkers.


Ottomanism, Nationalism, Republicanism IX

My latest at the group blog Notes On Liberty. Turkey from the coup of 1971 to the coup of 1980.

Notes On Liberty

After a break dealing with proofs and indexes of two forthcoming books, a process that overlapped with getting a new university semester started, I can return to this series, which I last added to here. I set the scene of the late 1960s in Turkey, so I will turn to the next big upheaval, the Coup by Memorandum on March 12th 1971.

The Coup by Memorandum followed an attempted coup by far left/third worldist revolutionaries amongst the officer corps. Any unity created by the Kemalist project (secularist national-republican tradition of Turkey’s founder, Kemal Atatürk) was effectively ended, though this decomposition could be said about the whole period from the 1940s to 1971, especially after the adoption of multi-partyism by Atatürk’s successor, İsmet İnönü.

The 1971 coup forced the resignation of the conservative Prime Minister Süyleman Demirel and the implementation of a program to crush the far left, while also…

View original post 675 more words

Why Hayek was Wrong about American and European Conservatism IV

‘Why Hayek was Wrong about American and European Conservatism IV. My latest contribution to the group blog Notes On Liberty

Notes On Liberty

Continuing a discussion from here inspired by F.A. Hayek’s essay ‘Why I am Not a Conservative’.

One central claim of Hayek’s essay is that American conservatism is not the same as European conservatism, as it is rooted in the classical liberalism of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. He notes that ‘European’ style conservatism exists in the US but claims it is an artificial import that looks odd. A really big problem here is Hayek’s assumption that there are native national forms of political culture which are authentic compared with alien intrusions. Of course national context and tradition are important, but that should not conceal understanding of pluralism, emergence from the margins of positions that have always been there, change, and influences across national frontiers.

Hayek’s talk of odd looking imports into American conservatism may cover Russell Kirk and William Buckley, both major influences…

View original post 859 more words

Why Hayek was Wrong about American and European Conservatism II

My latest at the group blog Notes On Liberty

Notes On Liberty

The first post in this series concentrates on the more radical authoritarian populist side of conservatism in Europe. Before getting on to American conservatism and other aspects of European conservatism, I will respond to requests in the comments for definitions of what I mean by liberalism and conservatism. The shortest class definition I am aware of is that of David Hume in his essay ‘Of the Parties of Great Britain’ where he suggests that Whigs (liberals) favour liberty with a monarchy and that Tories (conservatives) favour monarchy with liberty. This can be expanded with little, if any controversy, to be taken as: liberals advocate liberty with order; conservatives favour order with liberty.

I will move from Hume to Benjamin Constant in Principles of Politics Applicable to all Governments. Constant is surely an unimpeachable source on what it is to be a classical liberal and it is important to…

View original post 870 more words

Why Hayek was Wrong About American and European Conservatism I

My latest post at the group blog Notes on Liberty

Notes On Liberty

The title of this post refers to F.A. Hayek’s essay ‘Why I am Not a Conservative’, which can be found as an appendix to his 1960 book The Constitution of Liberty. What this post is really about is the deficiencies of American conservatism and the general idea of liberal conservatism or a natural alliance between classical liberals and conservatives. However, first a few words about Hayek’s essay as Hayek is an important figure for liberty advocates. The essay in question is well known and particularly easy to find online.

Hayek’s criticism of conservatism overestimates the extent to which it is just a limiting position, slowing down change. The relation of conservatism to tradition is seem too much as conservatism being too slow to accept changes to tradition. Traditionalist conservatism, however, has been a much more active and dangerous force than that. ‘Traditionalism’ as far as I know…

View original post 692 more words