You are an absolute godsend. The concept of law is so difficult to comprehend and so far i haven't been able to find any resource that properly explains it until now.
Thanks for the kind words! Glad that I could help. Here is my playlist of all of the chapters from the book about which I have produced lecture videos: ruclips.net/p/PL7YPshZMeLIbkhDcwdyhyCFlA6Na9nvn8 And feel free to share my videos with others who might find them helpful. I have no idea how to game this RUclips algorithm.
I'm in first year of law school. Jurisprudence has been the most difficult to grasp. Not just the material or substance but what Jurisprudence even is. This has been extremely helpful. I have ADHD, reading is difficult for me when it comes to new material and subjects. You are helping me get into Jurisprudence.
Your a genius. You not only explained it perfectly in plain english, you did it in 30mins. My lecturers cannot do this. With that being said, I cannot thank you enough. Keep the good work up.
I cannot thank you enough for your videos. I am typically a dean's list student but I have to record lectures and spend a lot of extra hours studying because I have ADHD, with quarantine, my focus has been so off and I cannot read through things or find videos that make my hyper focus enough to understand the concepts from class. I watched your Descartes meditations videos and they made me actually understand the content so I came to your page to subscribe and found the Philosophy of law section and I almost passed out, I found a helpful tool for the two classes I am taking for my major this semester. Thanks again!
So glad I found your videos! I'm in my last year of law in the UK studying legal theory and your videos really help to make sense of all the complicated stuff. Many thanks
Thank you for this great resource! Just got into reading Hart and am planning to enter law school after undergrad. I’m excited to watch your other videos.
Thanks for starting this series! Look forward to watching the rest! Naturally, you are probably going to talk a lot about the interaction of law and ethics. I would be particularly curious to hear about what reflection various normative theories' principles find in law, and how our raw intuitions may be contrary to particular legal rules. One notorious example would be the law's denial of utilitarianism's aggregation thesis, which many find to be a no-brainer, at least in thought experiments.
Thanks Sir!! I can’t tell how much this helped me i have exams around the corner and had no idea of what’s all this debate about, it’s so easy to understand now. ❤️
Thank you. It is very lucid. I have registered in a distance law of philosophy course at the undergraduate level, where the instructor assigns the raw materials.
Great lecture, explaining something so clearly that is almost incomprehensible in its original form. That seems to be generally the case. When someone writes a long book about a theory that ultimately does not make sense, they tend to do it in a very convoluted way using big words, hoping that nobody would catch on to them 🙂
I have an exam in a few hours and this video was my saviour. Thank you so so much. This was great. Will be reading all of them even though my course requires me to read only a few parts. :D
For anyone curious about LCC, Professor Kaplan is quite right, it is (was) something in the UK government - it was the London County Council (the forerunner of the Greater London Council, which was itself the forerunner of the current London Assembly), and it had control of policy areas like education and health delegated to it by the relevant statutes.
Dr. Kaplan, are you an ethical non-naturalist? I got that vibe from one of your earliest videos on your ethics talk, since it seemed like you also think there are epistemic norms. Secondly, your playlist was the first to pop up when searching ‘philosophy of law,’ so good job 🥳.
What a class, man! It is quite interesting how Austin's theory faces the legitimation of the normative statements. Indeed, maybe this is the real reason that condenses the logical conformity of his legal theory. When you assume that the laws' enforcement derives from premises like habits or sanctions, it's clearly revealed that behaviorism works as a paradigm for comprehension of the juridical phenomena, something like a way or standard to explain the law theory (obviously in behaviorist terms). If, on the one hand, Austin managed to adapt his legal theory to the most advanced scientific thought of his time, he ended up harming significant dimensions of the legal phenomenon. By the way, it is amazing to think of and explain law in psychological terms. It opens a wide range of scientific possibilities about the juridical norms. Sorry for my bad English. Greetings from Brazil!
This is a really informative lecture. I’ve watched bits of a few others in your philosophy of law series, and I’ll be watching the whole thing shortly. I know very little about philosophy of law, despite being in a grad program with some political philosophers. And this is a major gap for me, since I plan to work on philosophical critique of drug laws. (My only familiarity with Hart is some later commentaries on the Hart-Devlin debate.) Is it a bit anachronistic to call Austin’s theory ‘behaviorist’? My understanding is that the term “behaviorism” emerged in 1900s psychology, and wouldn’t have been used in the 1800s in this way. With that said, I think I do see how Austin’s theory has affinities with the later behaviorist theories, regarding his efforts to explain human institutions by appeal to outward behaviors rather than mental states.
Great lecture, thanks :) One small note: At around the 5-minute mark you say you're not sure whether Austin and Bentham were behaviourists. In fact, behaviourism did not emerge until the early 20th century; their writings predate it by roughly a century!
Additionally, I found a slight resemblance of omnipotence that trickled out of my recent philosophy of religion course when you mentioned the Queen answering to no one else. Nothing more, just an observation.
I wouldn't quite say that the five things I list in this video are "theories." Instead, they are ways that, according to Austin (as Hart portrays him), a simple gunman scenario can be modified such that it turns into a legal system.
Jeffrey - I doubt few people, whether in the audience or even in the discipline, understand how well you communicate this subject. We should note that these theorists: Bentham, Austin, Rez, Kelsen, Hart, Dworkin, and Rawls all justify (make excuses) for positive law (commands). While Blackstone Hayek, Epstein, and Scalia are all making scientific explanations of the law. But does the audience know the difference between justificationary command and the scientific decidability? It's that the scientific explanation (European) use of sovereignty and reciprocity forces the population to use the legislature to ADAPT, and the law and court limit the legislature and thereby the people to ADAPTATION whereas accommodation (command) does not. This is the difference between command and law: command (justification) is cumulatively devolutionary, and law (science) is cumulatively evolutionary. In this context, we see why western states remained small and never fell to empire as did the rest of the world into civilization states: the pressure to continuously evolve by continuous adversarial competition forcing continuous personal, social, and political adaptation. And legal positivism has been the reason for the collapse of western civilization in the industrial and especially postwar age: we are no longer forcing the population to adapt, but finding excuses for maladaptation and devolution.
I will try. Unfortunately, I have several other courses that I am required to teach this coming semester, so I probably won't be able to make videos on those chapters for some time.
@@profjeffreykaplan thanks for your consideration. Actually our classes are also going on for the same. Your classes are helping me a lot. Thankyou and waiting for you videos on chapter 8 and 9.
Thanks. You are not the first to ask! I get this frequently enough that I made a video explaining how it works: ruclips.net/video/6_d44bla_GA/видео.html
In your video about Singer, you don't seem to know that "going the extra mile" is part of Christian ethics. If someone asks you to go a mile, go two. Theres nothing extraordinary about it but you turned off your comments for some reason.
Is the idea of the gunman supposed to introduce or propose the basis of authoritarianism? Only on minute "8:50", so likely more thoughts, comments, or questions to come!
Joel, I am as well as one can be at a moment like this. I hope everything is well with you as well! I had to teach a bunch of online courses, so I put all these lectures up here. There probably doesn't exist enough interest on the internet for my philosophy lectures to make me famous, but we shall see!
@@han.splash9648 sorry to disappoint, but I learn the law in a country that uses civil law (which is obviously different from the US legal system). therefore, I don't think I'm qualified to teach you. but if u have any question I'll try my best to answer them
Hi no comments on Singer = no sub from me Great topic. Would love to participate. My guess is ppl lost their shirts but I can ignore it. Zero need to argue. But I enjoy commenting.
LLC would be... Hmmm a 'limited liability company'. That can't be right. Perhaps Hart meant the LCC the 'London County Council' which was the local authority for inner London (except the City) from 1889 to 1965. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_County_Council
Austin's concept of law is so manifestly wrong and primitive that when Hart takes it upon himself to argue with it, he becomes wrong and primitive just as well. You simply can't be taken seriously if you begin arguing with something totally devoid of scientific value and common sense.
You are an absolute godsend. The concept of law is so difficult to comprehend and so far i haven't been able to find any resource that properly explains it until now.
Thanks for the kind words! Glad that I could help. Here is my playlist of all of the chapters from the book about which I have produced lecture videos: ruclips.net/p/PL7YPshZMeLIbkhDcwdyhyCFlA6Na9nvn8
And feel free to share my videos with others who might find them helpful. I have no idea how to game this RUclips algorithm.
❤
Qq@jeffreykap % clan1
I'm in first year of law school. Jurisprudence has been the most difficult to grasp. Not just the material or substance but what Jurisprudence even is. This has been extremely helpful. I have ADHD, reading is difficult for me when it comes to new material and subjects. You are helping me get into Jurisprudence.
So glad that I could help!
@@profjeffreykaplan how can I connect this the Theory of Good Faith?
Your a genius. You not only explained it perfectly in plain english, you did it in 30mins. My lecturers cannot do this. With that being said, I cannot thank you enough. Keep the good work up.
You have explained perfectly in 29 minutes what my professor has so far failed to explain in 6 hours of lectures. My gratitude is beyond words!
Watching three days before my exam. I have read the chapter but still couldnt get the hang of it and you just made it a walk in the park Sir.
Glad I could help!
These videos are fantastically helpful. Explaining complex topics like this in a digestible manner is a real skill. Thank you!
I cannot thank you enough for your videos. I am typically a dean's list student but I have to record lectures and spend a lot of extra hours studying because I have ADHD, with quarantine, my focus has been so off and I cannot read through things or find videos that make my hyper focus enough to understand the concepts from class. I watched your Descartes meditations videos and they made me actually understand the content so I came to your page to subscribe and found the Philosophy of law section and I almost passed out, I found a helpful tool for the two classes I am taking for my major this semester. Thanks again!
I am glad that I could help!
So glad I found your videos! I'm in my last year of law in the UK studying legal theory and your videos really help to make sense of all the complicated stuff. Many thanks
I'm glad to help!
THANK YOU VERY MUCH !! I have struggled a whole afternoon with my Legal System textbook and this video saved my life. Thank you!!
Thank you for this great resource! Just got into reading Hart and am planning to enter law school after undergrad. I’m excited to watch your other videos.
You're welcome! Glad you enjoyed the video!
Thanks for starting this series! Look forward to watching the rest! Naturally, you are probably going to talk a lot about the interaction of law and ethics. I would be particularly curious to hear about what reflection various normative theories' principles find in law, and how our raw intuitions may be contrary to particular legal rules. One notorious example would be the law's denial of utilitarianism's aggregation thesis, which many find to be a no-brainer, at least in thought experiments.
Thanks Sir!! I can’t tell how much this helped me i have exams around the corner and had no idea of what’s all this debate about, it’s so easy to understand now. ❤️
Glad I could help!
Thank you. It is very lucid. I have registered in a distance law of philosophy course at the undergraduate level, where the instructor assigns the raw materials.
Great lecture, explaining something so clearly that is almost incomprehensible in its original form. That seems to be generally the case. When someone writes a long book about a theory that ultimately does not make sense, they tend to do it in a very convoluted way using big words, hoping that nobody would catch on to them 🙂
I have an exam in a few hours and this video was my saviour. Thank you so so much. This was great. Will be reading all of them even though my course requires me to read only a few parts. :D
Glad it was helpful!
For anyone curious about LCC, Professor Kaplan is quite right, it is (was) something in the UK government - it was the London County Council (the forerunner of the Greater London Council, which was itself the forerunner of the current London Assembly), and it had control of policy areas like education and health delegated to it by the relevant statutes.
This video is golden man! You explained much better than my own prof, thank you!!
Thanks for the lessons. You do it so effortlessly. 👍👍
Thanks. It only looks that way! Takes some effort. But thanks.
These videos made me understand the concept of Jurisprudence. Thank you to my lecturer who was also watching these videos
i am in the first year of my law school an couldn't understand the concept of law but you made it easier
thanku so much
This channel is underrated
Thanks! Lot's more stuff coming the next few months.
@@profjeffreykaplan Looking forward to seeing the next episode on this!
Dr. Kaplan, are you an ethical non-naturalist? I got that vibe from one of your earliest videos on your ethics talk, since it seemed like you also think there are epistemic norms.
Secondly, your playlist was the first to pop up when searching ‘philosophy of law,’ so good job 🥳.
What a class, man! It is quite interesting how Austin's theory faces the legitimation of the normative statements. Indeed, maybe this is the real reason that condenses the logical conformity of his legal theory. When you assume that the laws' enforcement derives from premises like habits or sanctions, it's clearly revealed that behaviorism works as a paradigm for comprehension of the juridical phenomena, something like a way or standard to explain the law theory (obviously in behaviorist terms). If, on the one hand, Austin managed to adapt his legal theory to the most advanced scientific thought of his time, he ended up harming significant dimensions of the legal phenomenon. By the way, it is amazing to think of and explain law in psychological terms. It opens a wide range of scientific possibilities about the juridical norms. Sorry for my bad English. Greetings from Brazil!
you got me A+ in my philosphy of law exam, thank you Sir
Amazing content, Jeffrey! Thank you!
This is a really informative lecture. I’ve watched bits of a few others in your philosophy of law series, and I’ll be watching the whole thing shortly. I know very little about philosophy of law, despite being in a grad program with some political philosophers. And this is a major gap for me, since I plan to work on philosophical critique of drug laws. (My only familiarity with Hart is some later commentaries on the Hart-Devlin debate.)
Is it a bit anachronistic to call Austin’s theory ‘behaviorist’? My understanding is that the term “behaviorism” emerged in 1900s psychology, and wouldn’t have been used in the 1800s in this way. With that said, I think I do see how Austin’s theory has affinities with the later behaviorist theories, regarding his efforts to explain human institutions by appeal to outward behaviors rather than mental states.
I am watching from Namibia and thank you so much, very helpful indeed.
You're welcome!
This beats all the pdfs I've read so far.
Great lecture, thanks :) One small note: At around the 5-minute mark you say you're not sure whether Austin and Bentham were behaviourists. In fact, behaviourism did not emerge until the early 20th century; their writings predate it by roughly a century!
Thank you so much for this. It really helps alot. Keep making videos mate!
Good luck
The LCC (not LLC) was the London County Council ie a local government body with some statutory puwers
appreciable...
thank you sir...
love from India (kashmir)
You are so good. I wish you can have various classes e.g Delict, Public International law, etc
Just a note. Queen-in-Parliament is a part of Parliament. Parliament is sovereign not the Queen.
excuse me, but where is the chapter 1? I don't see it in playlist :(
Additionally, I found a slight resemblance of omnipotence that trickled out of my recent philosophy of religion course when you mentioned the Queen answering to no one else. Nothing more, just an observation.
Why are the comments turned off on the "people are evil" talk? That video needs comments, so much to speak about
This is so helpful thank you!
Very nicely expressed 🙏🙏
LCC stands for the legal convictions of the community I think
Could you give a lecture on Godel's incompleteness theorems? It would be great!
Why there are not Hart - Concept of Law - Ch1?
great videos，thanks from China
You're welcome! And thanks for the kind words.
You guys also read Hart.. But why..?
@@badalsinghrajput7163 so。。Why not？
@@Martin-dl1om 国内讲哈特的，除了陈景辉老师的讲座，我实在找不到别的了。。
@@法妹 都忙着发几篇和当官，能带着学生读哈特的都是大善人。🤣
LCC is-The London County Council (LCC) was the principal local government body for the County of London throughout its existence from 1889 to 1965
My Professor also skipped Austin and did hart. I was confused at first, thought I had skipped a class or something
Same as u, seems like jurisprudence is the most undermined subject not for students but for lecturer😂😂
Thanks from India 🇮🇳
You're welcome!
Sir plss make vids on Austin & Kelsen as well
I used to hate jurisprudence. Now that I'm understanding, it seems quite interesting
Woah, now *that* is a complement!
I'm confused. Is naturalism and natural law the same? And if not are they even related?
Natural law is not a specific doctrine like -ism- it is a fundamental moral concept in jurisprudence that is expounded by St. Thomas Aquinas
@@SeanAnthony-j7f Thanks. I come from a civil law system so sometimes is difficult to understand the legal terms from the common law perspective.
So the 5 theories you covered. Are those the comment theories of Austin???
I wouldn't quite say that the five things I list in this video are "theories." Instead, they are ways that, according to Austin (as Hart portrays him), a simple gunman scenario can be modified such that it turns into a legal system.
Please 🙏 make a video on Kelson theory please please please
Jeffrey - I doubt few people, whether in the audience or even in the discipline, understand how well you communicate this subject.
We should note that these theorists: Bentham, Austin, Rez, Kelsen, Hart, Dworkin, and Rawls all justify (make excuses) for positive law (commands). While Blackstone Hayek, Epstein, and Scalia are all making scientific explanations of the law. But does the audience know the difference between justificationary command and the scientific decidability? It's that the scientific explanation (European) use of sovereignty and reciprocity forces the population to use the legislature to ADAPT, and the law and court limit the legislature and thereby the people to ADAPTATION whereas accommodation (command) does not. This is the difference between command and law: command (justification) is cumulatively devolutionary, and law (science) is cumulatively evolutionary. In this context, we see why western states remained small and never fell to empire as did the rest of the world into civilization states: the pressure to continuously evolve by continuous adversarial competition forcing continuous personal, social, and political adaptation. And legal positivism has been the reason for the collapse of western civilization in the industrial and especially postwar age: we are no longer forcing the population to adapt, but finding excuses for maladaptation and devolution.
What’s chapter one?
I don't bother teaching chapter 1 in my Philosophy of Law courses. It's boring!
Please make a class for chapterr 8 and 9 also. Thankyou.
I will try. Unfortunately, I have several other courses that I am required to teach this coming semester, so I probably won't be able to make videos on those chapters for some time.
@@profjeffreykaplan thanks for your consideration. Actually our classes are also going on for the same. Your classes are helping me a lot. Thankyou and waiting for you videos on chapter 8 and 9.
please consider this request sir
Love your lectures....but how the heck are you writing....its driving me nuts!
Thanks. You are not the first to ask! I get this frequently enough that I made a video explaining how it works: ruclips.net/video/6_d44bla_GA/видео.html
I just realised you had to learn how to write backwards or something. I assume you're writing on glass, that's crazy and cool
In your video about Singer, you don't seem to know that "going the extra mile" is part of Christian ethics. If someone asks you to go a mile, go two. Theres nothing extraordinary about it but you turned off your comments for some reason.
You are amazing
Your works are too lengthy and I feel you should be straight forward with some of your explanation. But I like your work no cap 🧢❤
"I am under no Laws but God's" ~ lesson 76 ACIM
Is the idea of the gunman supposed to introduce or propose the basis of authoritarianism? Only on minute "8:50", so likely more thoughts, comments, or questions to come!
Pretty cool that I found your channel. I hope all is going well!
Joel, I am as well as one can be at a moment like this. I hope everything is well with you as well! I had to teach a bunch of online courses, so I put all these lectures up here. There probably doesn't exist enough interest on the internet for my philosophy lectures to make me famous, but we shall see!
Amazing. Tysm
Blackstone, St Thomas Aquinas, Plato
LCC Local County Council is my bet.
thank you so much
You're welcome!
Are you also studying law in high school ?
@@han.splash9648 nope, im in law school rn
@@daffadhiya6781 I'm in grade 12 and i enrolled in a law course and am suffering. Can you help if i pay u a bit of cash?
@@han.splash9648
sorry to disappoint, but I learn the law in a country that uses civil law (which is obviously different from the US legal system). therefore, I don't think I'm qualified to teach you. but if u have any question I'll try my best to answer them
My guess for LCC is London County Council.
you look like mike from suits ! wow
LCC: Legal Convictions of the Community :)
Where is chapter 1
Dearest sir, please upload chapter 8 and 9. Its a small request, please consider it.
Modification 3 sounds like Stockholm syndrome and isn't modification 4 the "adhere to authority" fallacy? Looking forward to Hart's response
Thanks
this is saving my ass rn.
Hi no comments on Singer = no sub from me
Great topic. Would love to participate. My guess is ppl lost their shirts but I can ignore it. Zero need to argue. But I enjoy commenting.
You haven't missed anything by avoiding barfights.
太牛了 一下就懂了
Austin's legal system sounds like a gunman holding everyone hostage perpetually so that they mostly put the money in the bag.
Lcc local city council
LLC would be... Hmmm a 'limited liability company'. That can't be right. Perhaps Hart meant the LCC the 'London County Council' which was the local authority for inner London (except the City) from 1889 to 1965. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_County_Council
Austin's concept of law is so manifestly wrong and primitive that when Hart takes it upon himself to argue with it, he becomes wrong and primitive just as well. You simply can't be taken seriously if you begin arguing with something totally devoid of scientific value and common sense.