[lit-ideas] Re: Popperian Jurisprudence [Amended]

  • From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 05:52:13 -0700 (PDT)





________________________________
 From: Torgeir Fjeld <torgeir_fjeld@xxxxxxxx>
To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 11:13 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Popperian Jurisprudence [Amended]
 


R. Paul (Emeritus of Oregon) wrote:

> to search for such partially decisive actions and events, yet in need of 
> validation, 

> as, e.g. when a player touches the chess piece she's about to move but does 
> not reveal 

> its ultimate destination. Whether its 'ultimate destination' is determined 

> observationally or by interrogating the player has no clear answer. 

Possibly malapropos, but yet: note the double entendre of the term 
'destination' in Paul. Should we take it to mean 'topographical end point,' or 
'hermeneutic meaning'? 


*I am not sure why this is considered a relevant dilemma. When a chess player 
touches a piece, he / she has only committed to playing with that piece. He / 
she has not yet committed to placing a piece on any particular square until he 
has done so in reality. Indeed, he is within his legal rights to change his 
mind and place the piece on a different square from the one he originally 
intended, as long as he plays with the piece he touched. (As long as the move 
is a legal one in the sense of other chess rules) The only problem that may 
arise here is what happens when a player touches a piece but he cannot make a 
legal move (in the sense of other rules) with that piece, for example when he 
is in check and he cannot make a move with that piece that gets him out of 
check. In such a case there may arguably be a conflict of rules but 
intentionality isn't in question, ie there is no point where the rules require 
us to guess or inquire what his original intention
 was when he touched the piece.

Omar

Other related posts: