untitled

NOTES TO PAGES 337–45

27. Kant,Critique of Pure Reason, A738 / B766.


28. Apart from Onora O’Neill, scholars who have done the most to advance the Kantian
    interpretation of toleration include: Barbara Herman, ‘‘Pluralism and the Community of Moral
    Judgment,’’ inToleration, ed. Heyd; and Philip L. Quinn, ‘‘Religious Diversity and Religious Tolera-
    tion,’’International Journal for Philosophy of Religion50 (2001): 57–80. See also the references in
    notes 2 and 24, above.


29. Kant, ‘‘An Answer to the Question,’’ 58. I base my translation ofToleranzas ‘‘tolerance’’
    (and not ‘‘toleration’’ or ‘‘tolerant’’) onGrimm Deutsches Wo ̈rterbuch(Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1935),
    which suggests that the root ofToleranzis Latintolerantiaand Frenchtole ́rance.


30. See Howard Caygill,A Kant Dictionary(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1995), 346–50, for an
    overview of the different divisions within Kant’s discussion of reason.


31. Immanuel Kant,Critique of Practical Reason, 3d ed., trans. Lewis White Beck (Upper Sad-
    dle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1993), 48, A81.


32. Ibid., 138–40, A238–39).


33. See, e.g., Kant,Critique of Pure Reason, A11 / B24 and A50 / B74.


34. I pursue this exploration in ‘‘Subsistent Tolerance: Merleau-Ponty and the Embodiment
    of Democratic Pluralism,’’Culture and Politics1, no. 1 (forthcoming).


35. Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception, trans. Colin Smith (London:
    Routledge, 1962), 56–57.

Matthew Scherer, Saint John: The Miracle of Secular Reason

1. Amy Gutmann, ‘‘A Tribute to John Rawls 1921–2002,’’ posted on the Harvard University
   Center for Ethics and the Professions Web site,http://www.ethics.harvard.edu/memoriam_
   rawls.php.


2. Peter Laslett had put this claim quite directly, writing: ‘‘For the moment, anyway, political
   philosophy is dead’’ (Politics, Philosophy and History[Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1956], vii).


3. Sheldon Wolin, ‘‘The Liberal/Democratic Divide,’’Political Theory24, no. 1 (February
   1996): 97–119.


4. For a discussion of the figure of the miracle, spanning its ancient origins and contemporary
   invocations, see Hent de Vries,Of Miracles and Special Effects, forthcoming.


5. ‘‘Miracles,’’ in Shailer Matthews and Gerald Birney Smith, eds.,A Dictionary of Religion and
   Ethics(New York: Macmillan, 1921), 285–86.


6. For a comparison of the biblical instances of these terms, see ‘‘Miracles,’’ in James Hastings,
   ed.,Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970), 676–90. For
   arguments concerning miracles, see: Baruch Spinoza,Theological-Political Treatise(Indianapolis:
   Hackett, 2001), chap. 6; David Hume,An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding(Oxford: Ox-
   ford University Press, 2006), chap. 10; Thomas Hobbes,Leviathan(Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994),
   chap. 37; and John Locke, ‘‘A Discourse of Miracles,’’ inReasonableness of Christianity and a Dis-
   course of Miracles(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958), 79–87.


7. Thomas Pogge, ‘‘Memorial for John Rawls: The Magic of the Green Book,’’Kantian Review
   8 (2004): 153–55, and his ‘‘A Brief Sketch of Rawls’s Life,’’ in Henry S. Richardson and Paul J.
   Weithman, eds.,The Philosophy of Rawls, 5 vols. (New York: Garland, 1999), vol. 1.


8. According to Anthony Simon Laden, ‘‘three thousand articles that discuss the work of John
   Rawls have been published in journals of philosophy, law, economics, political science, and related

PAGE 736

736

.................16224$ NOTE 10-13-06 12:34:17 PS