When we add 2+3, we can see, as it were, with our mind's eye that it equals 5. Very elaborate proofs, however, cannot be seen to be valid as a whole. In other words, no single one glance of the "mind's eye" will confirm that the argument as a whole is valid. Or rather, it is not presently humanly possible, but anyone who asserts that it is valid is likely to imagine a Herculean mind (to steal from Dworkin) that could see all at once the validity of such arguments. To put it in the language of phenomenology, we "emptily intend" this sort of fulfillment even though it is presently practically unattainable. Might this sort of empty intending be relevant to our concept of justice? Consider the following analogy: knowing the right way to interact with friends and family is comparable to apprehending the validity of the simple equation (2+3=5) just as knowing how strangers in society are to interact is comparable to knowing that an extremely complex argum