Does Hans succeed in avoiding all ontological/metaphysical assumptions?
This question has posed quite a challenge for me because I tend to get the terms epistemology and metaphysics confused and sometimes, the definitions can intertwine with another. However to answer this question thoroughly, we must begin from the basics. Epistemology more or less, is concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge. It addresses of what knowledge is, how it is acquired, what people know, and how do we know what we know? This field can be debatable because how do we know what knowledge is, and what constitutes as knowledge in relativity to humans. In other words, how do we know what knowledge truly is? On the other hand, metaphysics investigates the principles of reality transcending those of particular science. Ontology the branch of metaphysics we are analyzing in this situation studies the nature of being and their relations. Now we have the components to solve the puzzle and that is if Hans successfully described and defended an “epistemology” without metaphysics. In general, I feel, as Hans did not successfully defend what he should have defended. The reason why is because I feel as though Russell and him just went on a never-ending tangent. They had made some good points, but lacked an ending to their conversation, thus not solving an epistemological/metaphysical claim in relativity to Ernst Von Glasersfeld.
1.Since I am a little confused about the first question, could someone give me his or her perspective on the first question?
Dear Ms. Bridges,
Primarily, I would like to apologize for being so offensive to your grading system by analyzing you so harshly. You have pointed out many key points on my previous letter that I have sent you and it does seem like you do have some knowledge on the subject of philosophy. I do completely understand that I received the grade that I deserved because as a teacher myself, I have been in similar situations. Honestly, I would never assume that I am the greatest creative writer or that I deserved a better grade than what I earned. A grade only states what a person’s competency is within the course, and mine seemed to be average. Thank you for not taking my letter personally and I would be delighted to attend you dinner party. I hope you are in the mood to dance.
Most Sincerely,
Jules Randolph Govier
From the letter at the end of the book (Alison to Jules), does it seem that they have a better relationship in respect to being colleagues?
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Book Review on Philosophy of Law by Roscoe Pound
Philosophy of Law by Roscoe Pound presents the foundation of what Jurisprudence is and how it functions within the legal systems around the country. The book is clear and concise, giving the audience a clear perspective of what the subject, even if there is no prior knowledge with this field. Pound, a former Harvard Law student and scholar, brings an immense amount of knowledge about the history of the legal system (originated in the 18th century) while intertwining the basic concepts of law to create a concise summation of Jurisprudence. As one of the greatest Jurisprudence scholars in the United States his thoughts embrace the two great legal systems in the world, the Roman-civil law and the Anglo American Law which are significant jurisprudential writings of Western Europe and the United States, and a wide range of European/American Philosophy.
Some may ask the common questions, what is Jurisprudence or as some may refer to the subject, legal philosophy or philosophy of law? As stated by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, jurisprudence is the theory and philosophy of law which encompasses branches of Law such as natural law, legal positivism, legal realism, and critical legal studies. Jurisprudence began in the 18th century and primarily focused on the nature of law, civil law, and the law of nations. It can also be further broken down into categories both by the questions scholars seek to address and by the common theories of Jurisprudence (schools of thought regarding how those questions are to be best answered.
In regards to the book, Pound does give a concise overview of the historical aspects of jurisprudence, which I found to be extremely interesting. Jurisprudence originated in Ancient Rome, even if at its origins the discipline was a “periti” in the jus of traditional law, which is a body of oral laws and customs verbally transmitted from father to sun. Praetors established a workable body of laws by judging whether or not singular cases were capable of being prosecuted either by the edicta, the annual pronunciation of prosecutable offense, or in extraordinary situations, additions made to the edicta. An iudex (modern day-jury) then would judge a remedy according to the facts of the case.
Their sentences were supposed to be simple interpretations of the traditional customs, but effectively it was an activity that, apart from formally reconsidering for each case what precisely was traditionally in the legal habits, soon turned also to a more equitable interpretation, coherently adapting the law to the newer social instances. The law was then implemented with new evolutive Institutiones (legal concepts), while remaining in the traditional scheme. Praetors were replaced in 3rd century BC by a laical body of prudentes. The admission to this body was conditional upon proof of competence or experience.
Under the Roman Empire, schools of law were created, and the activity constantly became more academic. In the age from the early Roman Empire to the 3rd century, a relevant literature was produced by some notable groups including the Proculians and Sabinians. The degree of scientific depth of the studies was unprecedented in ancient times and reached still unrivaled peaks of skill. After the 3rd century, Jurisprudence became more bureaucratic, with few notable authors. It was during the Byzantine Empire (5th century) that legal studies were once again undertaken in depth, and it is from this cultural movement that Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis was born.
In general the book was extremely interesting but is also very challenging because the subject matter was just difficult to comprehend at some points. Also, this topic was more of an introduction and does not go into the topic at a microscopic level but more of a macroscopic level. Because of the terminology, I would highly recommend that anyone interested in this subject would either have a legal or philosophical dictionary to clarify any words that seem unknown and to accompany in the readings.
Some may ask the common questions, what is Jurisprudence or as some may refer to the subject, legal philosophy or philosophy of law? As stated by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, jurisprudence is the theory and philosophy of law which encompasses branches of Law such as natural law, legal positivism, legal realism, and critical legal studies. Jurisprudence began in the 18th century and primarily focused on the nature of law, civil law, and the law of nations. It can also be further broken down into categories both by the questions scholars seek to address and by the common theories of Jurisprudence (schools of thought regarding how those questions are to be best answered.
In regards to the book, Pound does give a concise overview of the historical aspects of jurisprudence, which I found to be extremely interesting. Jurisprudence originated in Ancient Rome, even if at its origins the discipline was a “periti” in the jus of traditional law, which is a body of oral laws and customs verbally transmitted from father to sun. Praetors established a workable body of laws by judging whether or not singular cases were capable of being prosecuted either by the edicta, the annual pronunciation of prosecutable offense, or in extraordinary situations, additions made to the edicta. An iudex (modern day-jury) then would judge a remedy according to the facts of the case.
Their sentences were supposed to be simple interpretations of the traditional customs, but effectively it was an activity that, apart from formally reconsidering for each case what precisely was traditionally in the legal habits, soon turned also to a more equitable interpretation, coherently adapting the law to the newer social instances. The law was then implemented with new evolutive Institutiones (legal concepts), while remaining in the traditional scheme. Praetors were replaced in 3rd century BC by a laical body of prudentes. The admission to this body was conditional upon proof of competence or experience.
Under the Roman Empire, schools of law were created, and the activity constantly became more academic. In the age from the early Roman Empire to the 3rd century, a relevant literature was produced by some notable groups including the Proculians and Sabinians. The degree of scientific depth of the studies was unprecedented in ancient times and reached still unrivaled peaks of skill. After the 3rd century, Jurisprudence became more bureaucratic, with few notable authors. It was during the Byzantine Empire (5th century) that legal studies were once again undertaken in depth, and it is from this cultural movement that Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis was born.
In general the book was extremely interesting but is also very challenging because the subject matter was just difficult to comprehend at some points. Also, this topic was more of an introduction and does not go into the topic at a microscopic level but more of a macroscopic level. Because of the terminology, I would highly recommend that anyone interested in this subject would either have a legal or philosophical dictionary to clarify any words that seem unknown and to accompany in the readings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)