The very nature of humanity and the ecology of the earth is changing from the world of Rawls. Our relations with technology and ecology are going to define our best selves.

The U.S. Military is an interesting use case for the ignorant veil - though I wouldn't want to write that out too far without caveat. In short, the ranks, chain of command, soldiers, non commissioned officers and officers alike - have a Rawlsian nature where everyone's role is defined and monetized for the greater good.

Another interesting use case are the virtual societies like Second Life, the Sims and Minecraft where people sometimes literally buy in with an assumed equality void of cultural pretense.

This is difficult territory. Interesting to hear these older shows hit forward to current politics (we are currently going through the 2nd Impeachment of Donald Trump - where liberal, liberty and assaults on our overlapping consensus are being worked out.)

Fun times... Rawls helps but this is far from the final word.

Enjoyed Rawls' tome on justice read several years ago. Working on a treatment of truth, after reading Davidson. May share some of those thoughts, if essay is not published in he next two-three months. Query: has Philosophy Talk ever done a show on that topic? I have been incommunicado since March, 2020, due to the plague.

Thanks. It is good to be. Here, or anywhere...

Still waiting to hear from a philosophy periodical on the truth piece. Thought about pitching it more widely but have not done so. There are a few remarks about the finished product in comments on another PT post. I'll try to retrace those and leave a reference here. Today,I heard news of a move towards expansion of the US Supreme Court, from nine to thirteen members. Somethiing Biden once called a bone-headed notion. I suppose the number thirteen has some basis and/or significance, but I don't know what that is. It would increase the federal payroll. I wonder if it would commensurately improve the justice system? Also, will Biden still think it bone-headed?

There is already one silent Sam associate justice on the court. What might be gained if there were more? Justice is already blind, right? I'm not sure it should also be silent. In law, we have the right to confront our accusers. With that proviso, we have some knowledge of what we are up against. There are problems aplenty in our republic. I think we ought to be leary of creating more of them. What say any of you?

Thanks, Tim. The thumbnail sketch on my truth essay is in my last remarks on the Faith and Humility blog offered herein. It is only a teaser because the paper goes into detail about what truth is versus what it might be under a totality of circumstances. I play my cards close. A friend has called some of what I sent him, 'something profound'. He had nothing to gain from his remark. He is more successful than anyone I know. I did not say rich. For some, wealth is THE measure of success. Maybe so. But, my fellow senior citizen friend now lives in Ecuador. Still works, closing in on his eighth decade. PSDP: providence smiles on determination and purpose. In any case, he is among the five most interesting people I have ever known. Among those, my older brother, with whom the friend attended high school and an early year or two of college. Yes, I will consider the blog idea. Thanks again.

Think you have made your point. So, let's leave it at that, shall we?

Credit where it is deserved; : I reconsidered your advice, and THINK I understand what you are saying, vis_a_vis adumbration, a word heard, but not previously understood. That admitted, I can only imagine that we both have read our share of philosophy. And, if that is correct, we have also encountered adumbration before. Philosophy is rife with it. I'll check out the link. I do well-recognize the disadvantage of lacking academic credentials. Don't have to like it; but do recognize it.

Not thinking too seriously of justice anymore. Other issues, unmet and/or unresolved, render such
concerns less immediate. On a lighter, if more concerning note, my focus in this commentary is tv court justice. My wife likes these shows and admits they are mostly for entertainment. I am repelled by them, not because of their entertainment quotient (yeah, EQ, not IQ). My more immediate worry is with folks who take such presentations seriously, and good representations of justice as Rawls described it. I find the buffoonery annoying, if not dangerous and disrespectful. And, though not totally inaccurate, the emphasis on minorities and their escapades is disturbing. A man from Detroit says he tries to keep it real. OK. His stand-up comic banter is reprehensible: real in a comedy club, not so much in court. I suppose he is popular but I am not laughing much.
The elder statesperson of these shows is better but not much. She provides equal opportunity. For embarrassment. Shushing people, like an indulgent grandmother, she seems to forget she has a gavel. Her command of court protocol is impeccable--- it ought to be. But in her way, she is as ridiculous as my first example.
Finally, there is the younger judge who presides over a paternity court. She is sympathetic and empathic---presenting these sentiments with convincing sincerity. More like a social worker than a judge. Her courtroom is a vent venue; her role, counselor and referee. When all is said, the "verdict" of the court falls upon science. Specifically, DNA testing. She is, as a practical matter, a reporter. Her judgment means nothing.
There are places for almost everything. Television is not the one for court. Not unless it is a televised and actual court proceeding. John Rawls is laughing. Or maybe he weeps...