My doctorate is not in Philosophy so pardon my layman language and resort to matters of practicality.

In my opinion, it is impossible to discuss justice without economics. Politics merely is a tool really for management of inequality that in its very essence is economic in nature. This is the rationale for the Electoral College in the United States. So long as small states can be swing states, they cannot be neglected by Presidents of the United States or Lawmakers. The protection afforded by the Electoral College is eminently economic in character and needs to be preserved.

Given discordance is celebrated as beauty within context of Philosophy in spirit of Philosophers such as Plato who attempt to find out just how much of contradiction they can get away with, I can understand why a philosophy of justice that abstracts away from economics can be celebrated. In Philosophy, grandness and abstractness it would seem have as much value as internal coherence.

A great philosopher of philosophy it seems to me then either is great at demonstrating internal coherence (Aristotle say) or great at generating grandness and abstractness that has some sort of inherent beauty (e.g. Plato, Nietzsche etc.).

Am I “layman” right in these assessments?