25:23 he didn’t “point it out”, he claimed it Once you concede language is indeterminate, you give the game away It can’t be determined, it depends on a specific social/psych background 30:43 or that they did it wrongly, or with too much power, more accurately
33:28 those are two completely different statements; the point is “law” has no *intrinsic* meaning of its own, without any elaboration. The point is being stuck in a labyrinth or confused isn’t necessary, things that are beaten into people to arbitrarily repeat or state have no value or necessity in themselves. The issue is actually assessing everything, ie. including social realities like that of university law department and court discourse as well as for example statutory texts etc., that wouldn’t be a realistic assessment of social realities it isn’t particularly connects to the thing being stated, quite the opposite. Whatever judges say it is “being law” precisely is a pretty straightforward *meaning* given to law, this doesn’t make sense, that is an example exactly of meaning of some kind (but even that isn’t exactly intrinsic). Statutes not “law”. Judicial decision have existed before statutes (see customary law etc.) so that is simply not true. I am not sure in what sense is a legal realism supposed to be opposed to the idea that there is a limit to what rationalisations are possible to be practiced by judges in the context for example of statutes etc. It seems more so like an invention, a treatment of realism as an alien tissue, hence also the odd statement that it is not a separate theory. Instead of applying it to itself, there’s a contradiction, things are attributed to it that it precisely rejects. This is based on precisely the notions that realism criticises; the rejection begs the question as to why as opposed to answering it. It is addressed as an imaginary position, when the imaginary premises are precisely the thing criticised The idea is there needn’t be an independent power of necessity making things so, not that actual things aren’t as they are- ie. the issue is separating out what things are actual, real, from things that aren’t, and talking about how and why they are, without reference to anything but what is actually there, actually the case.
25:23 he didn’t “point it out”, he claimed it
Once you concede language is indeterminate, you give the game away
It can’t be determined, it depends on a specific social/psych background
30:43 or that they did it wrongly, or with too much power, more accurately
32:16 What does that mean? If there is a coherent theory, is there no theory, why?
If there is a theoretical community is thee is one
very good lecture Sir. I really enjoyed listening to you. it was simple, clear and enlightening.
Thanks a lot
33:28 those are two completely different statements; the point is “law” has no *intrinsic* meaning of its own, without any elaboration.
The point is being stuck in a labyrinth or confused isn’t necessary, things that are beaten into people to arbitrarily repeat or state have no value or necessity in themselves. The issue is actually assessing everything, ie. including social realities like that of university law department and court discourse as well as for example statutory texts etc., that wouldn’t be a realistic assessment of social realities it isn’t particularly connects to the thing being stated, quite the opposite.
Whatever judges say it is “being law” precisely is a pretty straightforward *meaning* given to law, this doesn’t make sense, that is an example exactly of meaning of some kind (but even that isn’t exactly intrinsic).
Statutes not “law”. Judicial decision have existed before statutes (see customary law etc.) so that is simply not true.
I am not sure in what sense is a legal realism supposed to be opposed to the idea that there is a limit to what rationalisations are possible to be practiced by judges in the context for example of statutes etc.
It seems more so like an invention, a treatment of realism as an alien tissue, hence also the odd statement that it is not a separate theory.
Instead of applying it to itself, there’s a contradiction, things are attributed to it that it precisely rejects.
This is based on precisely the notions that realism criticises; the rejection begs the question as to why as opposed to answering it.
It is addressed as an imaginary position, when the imaginary premises are precisely the thing criticised
The idea is there needn’t be an independent power of necessity making things so, not that actual things aren’t as they are- ie. the issue is separating out what things are actual, real, from things that aren’t, and talking about how and why they are, without reference to anything but what is actually there, actually the case.
First time on this channel I am feeling someone is articulating without just mechanically reading the slides.
Looks like he didn't wanted to speak
Yeah... Looks like someone pointed a gun at him and forcing him to speak lmao
Just stop making videos..you are confusing the viewers.