In terms of progressing my understanding of legal philosophy, what should I read next.
I have already read leviathan, most of plato and aristotle save for the laws and the nichomachean ethics.
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Legal philosophy help
Bobbio
Many thanks
That HLA Hart book is pricey as hell
Really? I've got a beautiful, old copy-- dust jacket fully intact. Good to know
t. not OP
Do (you) live in a Common Law or Civil Law country, anon? Spinoza's two political treatises (one unfinished), Vico's New Science, and Montesquieu's Spirit of Laws though all very influential are nonetheless fun works to read (kind of like reading Spengler, Schopenhauer's essays, or Nietzsche is both 'fun' to read and informative). Spinoza's the sharpest of the three, but reading his political stuff's a cakewalk compared to reading The Ethics.
More modern books like Hart's that are classics include John Main's Ancient Law, and O. Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s The Common Law.
Good places to start and develop aar
I live in a common law country
Thought so; why I rec'd Main and Holmes, Jr. One of my favorite books along these lines are the Holmes/Pollock Letters.
*is
Thank you very much for the recs.
Is legal philosophy enriching for someone in the field?
We only discussed the philosophy of law in a very indirect and circumstantial manner in uni, it mainly being our Prof ranting against John Finnis (I didn't realise the later was Catholic and this was the real reason for our prof's ire)
I'm familiar with philosophy in other fields but never bothered with philosophy of law or what it might even be
Any time I have tried to apply anything more complex than proof texting in terms of hermeneutics to case law, I got weird looks so I'm distrustful to
To be honest, not really. But if you're of a speculative turn of mind and interested in both history and legal history (and would like to write along these lines someday) then yeah
Hmm sounds interesting then but I'm still confused as to what legal philosophy even is
I know that other fields of philosophy enjoy an internal coherence that is difficult to discern from outside so I'm keeping my hopes up
Legal philosophy:
What is the law?
How does morality effect law?
Which morality should we use to determine laws?
Do citizens have inalienable rights?
That kind of thing.
>what legal philosophy even is
Concerns: What Law even is. Bump the 'blank' legal philosophy is to you up to-- what is Law, anyway? (to the minds that have wrestled with the idea of 'this question' through time) and you're there: beginning with custom become compulsory..
>custom become compulsory..
The advent of civil power; social limitations on private vengeance, particularly Feud
Just as the Illiad begins with individual anger, so does Law (theoretically)
That's why I think Hobbes was so on point with his principles. It is like God in Genesis posited his Law from his Wrath through his Power on the world (fallen) and on human duty. The relation between the immortal God and the mortal God is impossible not to be pertinent.
Did (you) read Books 3 & 4, as well (The Christian Commonwealth part)? I rather enjoyed them, but they're commonly left unread by many who claim to have read Hobbes here.
I stopped at book IV. There was so much going on that I thought better stop and come back to reread some other parts later and finish it then. It is still pending.
Law is the means by which power realizes itself and its vision. The sole purpose and ultimate value of law lies with how well it can enforce the will of those who created it on those who are subject to it, that is to say, the powerless.
Hobbes states in his leviathan that even the weakest human being could potentially take out the strongest. Especially if the strongest is sleeping. What this essentially means is that law is a contract between the sovreign and subjects or governor and governed if you will. I disagree with your cynical outlook of law.
By 'power' do (you) mean the 'monied' in 2024? Otherwise (and regardless) you're guilty of crass anthropomorphism, loose thinking, and naive historical (less than) amateurism. The whole point of a Republican government with Democratic ideals is to vest power in the people; if (you) think this is false, then please explain why so much money, time, and effort is invested in campaigning, propaganda, and the propagation of scandal? My guess is because that power, perhaps frighteningly, really is vested in the people (the powerless) love or hate the mess (we're) in.
jsut read Blackstone.
Hans Kelsen, Carl Schmitt and E.W. Böckenförde maybe.
I'm not a huge fan of the subject, but I remembered being surprised that I enjoyed Francis Lieber's Legal and Political Hermeneutics as much as I did.
Quick rundown on Lieber (4-page article): https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1987/
And you should certainly dip your toes into Lysander Spooner. This article is a nice introduction: https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/liberty-matters-the-significance-of-lysander-spooner-jan-2016
At the risk of lowering the tone of the conversation, this Wikipedia write-up on the subject does seem to me to hit the highlights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_law
Finally, on a somewhat different subject, statutory interpretation, this is a fun article:
Fetch Some Soupmeat
https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/1056/Fetch_Some_Soupmeat.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
And an article I very much enjoyed, although it only touches on issues of legal philosophy in passing:
Samuel Williston's Struggle with Depression
https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1493&context=buffalolawreview