That's not what the Death card means

post 91
written 2006-02-09 20:32:00

It doesn't make any sense to be depressed over a discussion of constitutional law, does it?

I don't think so. But tonight we talked about moral reading of constitutional text and everyone that opened his mouth tonight just bagged on the author/speaker. (There was reading and a video.) The author, Dworkin, posited the idea of a omniscient legal mind that could catalog all prior decisions and the situations that prompted them, and could make the best of all possible findings based therein. As a single voice, the seminar derided him as an elitist, who clearly thought that he was that omniscient legal mind.

For whatever reason, that just makes me sad. I don't think Dworkin was suggesting that he has all the answers. He even said he considers the best thing we have, as a society, to serve that role is good argument. The flow of ideas, the social discourse wherein we can examine and consider our principles and circumstances. Class response: yeah, but he only reads the New York Times.

When did being good at something become something to be ashamed of? When did accomplishment become a reason to attack someone?

I'm going to read Taxation of Transfers and be depressed some more.

2.9.06, 8:32 PM, EST, Ada, OH, the internet can save us

[ archives | front page ]