Review Revisits an Ancient (and Tired) Quarrel about Justice

In recent classes I have talked with my students about the sophist charge in Plato's Republic that all claims about the nature of justice are disguised power grabs.

Interesting then that Adam Kirsch should write a review on CityJournal.org about a new book by philosopher Raymond Geuss, "Philosophy and Real Politics," which makes claims similar to those of the sophists thousands of years ago.

I say similar, because as Kirsch notes, if only Geuss were as consistent as sophist Thrasymachus, who urges us to be "happily unjust," Geuss would avoid contradiction.

But, rather, neo-Marxist/Leninist Geuss adopts a moral stance against the exercise of "real power" that masquerades as Justice. Which in turn suggests he has insights into a purer form of Justice. The very kind of Justice pursued by Plato and other philosophers that Geuss attacks.

It's a common contradiction found in the arguments of today's critiquing radicals.

But there's more to it. Simply attacking alleged (economic) injustice won't do. Radicalism has to raise the spectre of Thrasymachan injustice in order to do a clever switch.

What is really intended is an attempt to invalidate a certain economic or social class's ability to speak truthfully or credibly about Justice.

In other words, the discussion was never really about the nature of Justice at all, but rather about who is fit to participate in the discussion.