untitled

NOTES TO PAGES 357–67

ity towards posterity’’; and, in general, he notes that Rawls’s conclusions ‘‘must rest both on a rather
saintly view of things on the part of the contracting parties, and a quite unreasonable belief that
they would retain such a saintly view if they were top dogs in... society’’; but he concludes only
that Rawls has made a rather bad argument. (Bernard Williams, ‘‘Rawls and Pascal’s Wager,’’ in his
Moral Luck[Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981], 95, 96, 97, 99.)

48. As Rawls puts it, in order to avoid misinterpretation, ‘‘it is important to distinguish three
    points of view: that of the parties in the original position, that of citizens in a well-ordered society,
    and finally, that of ourselves—of you and me who are elaborating justice as fairness and examining
    it as a political conception of justice’’ (Political Liberalism, 28).


49. Ibid., 45.


50. ‘‘Saints,’’ in Adrian Hastings et al., eds.,The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought(Ox-
    ford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 639.


51. TheOxford Companion to Christian Thoughtpoints out that ‘‘Saints from different periods
    ... stand in sharp contrast to each other,’’ taking as an example that ‘‘Seventeenth-century philan-
    thropic saints such as Vincent de Paul represent a very different model of holiness from that of the
    founding fathers of great 12th-century monastic orders, such as Bernard of Clairvaux or Norbert of
    Xanten’’ (ibid.).


52. William James, ‘‘The Present Dilemma in Philosophy,’’The Writings of William James: A
    Comprehensive Edition, ed. John J. McDermott (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), 374.


53. Ibid., 364.


54. This point has been suggested by Sheldon Wolin, who notes that ‘‘Rawls is truly the virtu-
    ous philosopher whose great personal achievement is to have rejected celebrity status’’ (‘‘The Lib-
    eral/Democratic Divide,’’ 97).


55. Thomas Pogge, ‘‘A Brief Sketch of Rawls’s Life,’’ 2–3; ‘‘Memorial for John Rawls,’’ 153.


56. Pogge, ‘‘A Brief Sketch of Rawls’s Life,’’ 4–6.


57. Bonnie Honig,Political Theory and the Displacement of Politics(Ithaca: Cornell University
    Press, 1993), 126–27.


58. See Stanley Cavell,Conditions Handsome and UnhandsomeandCities of Words(Cam-
    bridge: Harvard University Press, 2004), 82–101, 119–44, 164–89 (chaps. 5, 7, and 9).

Bhrigupati Singh, Reinhabiting Civil Disobedience

1. Slavoj Zˇizˇek, ‘‘The Ongoing ‘Soft Revolution,’ ’’Critical Inquiry30, no.2 (Winter 2004):
   292–323.


2. I am referring in particular to Cavell’sThis New Yet Unapproachable America: Lectures after
   Emerson after Wittgenstein(Albuquerque: Living Batch Press, 1989), hisThe Senses of Walden(1972;
   expanded edition, San Francisco: North Point Press, 1981), where this question was first posed
   (‘‘Why has America never expressed itself philosophically? Or has it?’’), and hisEmerson’s Transcen-
   dental Etudes, ed. David Justin Hodge (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003), which collects
   his writings on Emerson from over two decades. Cavell’s books on Hollywood cinema are also
   linked to his conception of America:Pursuits of Happiness: The Hollywood Comedy of Remarriage
   (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981) andContesting Tears: The Hollywood Melodrama of
   the Unknown Woman(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996).


3. Martin Heidegger, ‘‘Building, Dwelling, Thinking,’’ inPoetry, Language, Thought, trans.
   Albert Hofstadter (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 143–61.

PAGE 739

739

.................16224$ NOTE 10-13-06 12:34:18 PS