[lit-ideas] Re: The Philosophy of Law

  • From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 16:45:51 +0100

So, what did Hart elucidate, that court procedures are really just language
games ?


On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Redacted sender Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx for
DMARC <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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: