[lit-ideas] Re: Legal Reasoning [referential suffocation]
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 21:24:29 +0000 (GMT)
>I was taught by a few nuns who seemed generally "innocent" of such principles
>and attendant virtues as this topic addresses.>
As Darwin explains, we have to look at the idea of fitness relative to a given
ecological niche. The nun's niche was medieval or feudal society. They did a
good job.
Was educated by some nuns myself: most seemed kindly and the leatherings were
left to civilian male teachers...actually, there was one nun. There's always
one nun. It's just one of God's rules.
Our nuns were fairly non-violent, Sacred Heart types (if you don't class
guitar-wielding singing nun as form of violence). But my brother went to Gerry
Adams' school (it wasn't called that then, it may officially be that now) - ah,
Christian Brothers, as Thomas Keneally'll tell you, well they fasttracked the
working classes educationally - with fringe benefits: picking up an armalite
against trained British soldiers is no worries after them. And that was
Belfast, where the Brothers were relatively restrained because of possible
reprisals. In the dark bogs and wild mutinous mountains, Brothers practised
like the Holy Father was about to order another Inquisition. But for real
perversion and serious criminality, you had to turn to the priesthood. Those
were the days alright. There was none of your Wittgenstein-Popper nonsense. We
kicked out Joyce and Beckett too.
D
Waking from reverie and wondering what this has to do with legal reasoning?
On Friday, 13 December 2013, 20:33, Mike Geary <gearyservice@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Walter: "Would you want your child to be a student of a teacher in a public
school who was innocent of such principles and their attendant virtues?"
I was taught by a few nuns who seemed generally "innocent" of such principles
and attendant virtues as this topic addresses. Rather than turning me into a
vicious person it informed me of the need for such virtues. Ergo, bring on the
vicious nuns! Inform the world of the need for gentleness and kindness by
beating the shit out of those who can't defend themselves -- you know, the old
"playing fields of Eton" theory of socialization.
J. Michael Geary
growing old and wearing my trousers rolled,
no women come and go though,
just a cold coming
I have of it.
Eliot?! Eliot?! You still quote Eliot?? My god, why not Robert Service then?
That was unkind and not at all gentle.
You're damn right it's not -- it's mean. Mean as hell. Yes, bless those
mean-ass nuns! Let mad Ireland hurt the world into poetry.
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Walter C. Okshevsky <wokshevs@xxxxxx> wrote:
Interesting. Just in relation to one point:
>
>O.K. expresses (Socratic) uncertainty about what "our" virtues or concept of
>virtue may be. Is it really the case that "our" understanding of the virtues is
>so opaque? We, "heirs of Socrates," members and supporters of a Republic of
>Ends, surely are reasonably clear on the formal and impartial/neutral
>principles grounding moral and political autonomy, and thus, on the virtues
>necessary for the promotion of that disposition.
>
>Would you want your child to be a student of a teacher in a public school who
>was innocent of such principles and their attendant virtues?
>
>Walter O.
>MUN
>
>
>
>Quoting Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
>> Well, perhaps they thought that justice was a more important virtue ?
>> Kindness would seem more like superficially 'being nice' than actually
>> treating others with justice. On the other hand, I am not sure that I would
>> place temperance among cardinal virtues - it is a virtue, to be sure, but I
>> wouldn't view it as being among the most important ones. Anyhow, it seems
>> reasonable to assume that the classical Greek concept of virtue was somewhat
>> different from ours (whatever ours might be) ?
>> A lot of the Lit/Ideas posts land in my spam folder these days, so I
>> apologize if I have missed something so far, or if I miss something from now
>> on.
>>
>> O.K.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, December 12, 2013 8:12 PM, Walter C. Okshevsky <wokshevs@xxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Apologies. Let me try my questions one more time, this time with a more
>> liberal
>> dose of cogency: Why did the Greeks not include kindness in their set of
>> cardinal virtues? Is kindness not equally a virtue as the other 4?
>>
>> Grateful to people for tempering their desire to offer snide commentary on
>> some
>> eggnoggish writing, Walter
>>
>>
>>
>> Quoting "Walter C. Okshevsky" <wokshevs@xxxxxx>:
>>
>> > Kindness. Surely the virtue most responsible for our 2 million year history
>> > on
>> > this planet.
>> >
>> > Question: Why did the Greeks not include this virtue in their 4 cardinal
>> > virtues? Note that not all of those virtues are deemed to be moral virtues.
>> > Is
>> > kindness not a moral virtue of equal importance?
>> >
>> > Walter O
>> > MUN
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Quoting Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>:
>> >
>> > > JL writes, in part
>> > >
>> > > Wikipedia has a rather extensive bibliography, I find, on 'casuistic'.
>> > >
>> > > Indeed, it does.
>> > >
>> > > I think your readers would find it a great kindness were you to list only
>> > > books and articles that you yourself have read and found useful or that
>> > > other knowledgeable people have recommended. An unsorted list like the
>> one
>> > > provided offers no more than the bluff of erudition.
>> > >
>> > > Robert Paul
>> > >
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
>> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
>digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
Other related posts:
