Ugh I fcking miss me as an instrumentalist.
I miss plucking every string of my Strat.
I miss pressing every piano key.
I miss playing the melody in my violin.
I miss recreating the arrangement of songs in my Garageband.
I miss recording my own compositions.
All I have today for my music is the continuous beating of my heart. Poor Bea.
the part of my report in CL 198 (Law and Literature)
Liberal theory – legal doctrine be amenable to rational reconstruction in terms of some consistent set of normative principles
- best construed as a conjunction of two claims:
(1) that it is impossible to provide a rational reconstruction of the body of legal doctrine by deriving its norms from a consistent set of underlying principles
(2) that the reason for this impossibility is that the reconstruction of certain elements of doctrine will require principles from a particular ethical viewpoint, while the reconstruction of other important elements of important elements of doctrine will require contradictory principles from an incompatible ethical viewpoint
ex. Kennedy’s model of individualism and altruism
Patchwork vs. Liberal theory
- revolves around the contention that the law would contain what liberal theory would have to regard as intolerably high level of indeterminacy if it were not amenable to rational reconstruction
*Accdg to Unger (Critical Legal Studies Movement), doctrinal rules contain so many gaps, conflicts, and ambiguities that they must be supplemented by an appeal to underlying principles in order to attain a degree of determinacy acceptable to liberalism and consistent with its commitment to the rule of law
*The problem that the patchwork thesis is thought to pose for liberalism is that when one goes to the level of principles, one simply finds the doctrinal conflicts in a more abstract form. The problem of indeterminacy is not resolved but merely pushed to another level. (ex. Judge chooses one between the incompatible principles)
Hutchinson vs. Dworkin
Hutchinson: The principle and counterprinciple are logically incompatible: if one is accepted, logical consistency demands that the other be rejected.
Dworkin: Hutchinson has not established that the principle and counterprinciple he cites are in fact logically incompatible. If the two principles were applied to all of the same cases, then one would surely have inconsistent results. Therefore, the principles might be said to be in “competition” with each other.
Basic strategy used by Hutchinson
(1) to specify a principle and counterprinciple in some area of doctrine
(2) to formulate or invoke two models of ethical thinking that are presumed to be logically incompatible
(3) to claim that there is a link between the principle and one model and the counterprinciple and the other model
(4) to conclude that the principles must be contradictory, since they are associated with incompatible ethical viewpoints, and that doctrine must be unamenable to rational reconstruction in terms of any consistent set of principles
*In re (3) and (4), if a given principle or counterprinciple (or both) could be defended on either model or on the basis of a third model, the argumentative strategy would fall apart; it would then be possible to argue that doctrine derived from the consistent application of a single ethical model and to accept consistently both principle and counterprinciple.
*Kennedy: The principles that constitute these opposing ethical viewpoints are sufficiently abstract so that with appropriate auxiliary assumptions, one could derive from individualism any of the doctrinal norms that appear to be direct expressions of altruism.
When I say, “I’m okay,”
I’m really okay.
When I say, “I want to be alone,”
I really want to be alone.
When I say, “You should go,”
You should really go.
When I say, “I love you,”
I really do.
I say things
And I really mean them.
When I say, “We should stop this,”
Maybe, we should.