[Wittrs] Re: What is "Originalism" [Larry Solum's View]
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, conlawprof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 14:49:09 -0700 (PDT)
Hi Daniel.
That's a tough question ("when is something an objective mockery of an
idea?"). A couple of purely abstract thoughts come to mind.
1. If, one day, we found in brain science that the behavior of mockery of an
idea resulted in a changed brain chemistry, one might, in theory, develop a
scientific accounting of the idea. This seems remotely plausible. How else
would mockery occur except by self deceit (dogma) or deceit of others (lying).
Surely these behaviors have neuroscientific consequences.
2. Lacking that, however, I believe we are only left with what Wittgenstein
described as "connoisseur judgment" (in his work on aesthetics and in other
areas). Any connoisseur of a craft can tell you when the craftsmanship is
merely poor, versus when it is not the craft in question. And so if judging one
day became culturally rogue to what connoisseurs of the craft expect, an
indictment among the learned of the craft might serve as an "objective"
condemnation.
(Of course, this may not work if the art itself is in trouble these days.
That's another matter entirely).
3. I think on a more practical level, people very often claim "mockery" when
what really exists is reasonable disagreement. So long as disagreement is
reasonable, there is no ethical problem.
Regards and thanks.
Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Professor
Wright State University
Personal Website: http://seanwilson.org
SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860
Discussion Group: http://seanwilson.org/wittgenstein.discussion.html
________________________________
From: Daniel Hoffman <guayiya@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; conlawprof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Sean Wilson
<whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Mon, May 3, 2010 5:24:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Wittrs] Re: What is "Originalism" [Larry Solum's View]
It is obvious that members of this list are divided over questions such as
whether the cross is a secular symbol, or whether diversity of background is a
valid job qualification.
Some may find these close questions, but often one or both sides think the
other is 'making a mockery of language." Is there a remotely objective
standard for identifying such a mockery?
Daniel Hoffman
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
