[lit-ideas] The Philosophy of Law
- From: "" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 10:14:50 -0500
In a message dated 3/3/2015 9:52:43 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Though I did not bother to make explicit the importance of a case like
Pilcher for any viable 'theory of knowledge', I think anyone re-reading those
old posts might see they present a challenge to anyone who thinks 'law' can
be grasped via a Lockean kind of empiricism, or a Cartesian 'intuitionism'
etc.
I think we are forgetting the _RIGHT_ approach: 'linguistic botany'.
It was H. L. A. Hart who, in the 1950s made a concerted effort to use
developments in philosophy of language to ‘elucidate’ the nature of law.
Hart did so with an enthusiasm for the work of Wittgenstein, and also of
Oxford ‘ordinary language’ philosophers such as J. L. Austin (and other
members of Austin's Play Group). So Hart had some advantages over Bentham who
followed a Lockean kind of empiricism, etc.
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
