| | |
|
KrishnaSutariaSecondPaper 6 - 24 May 2010 - Main.ChihIFang
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | | On the first day of class, we discussed the need to grapple different disciplines simultaneously in order to form a consilient understanding of any legal problem. Eben hypothesized that creative thinking is generated through this challenging process, and embracing it would make us better lawyers who saw past the immediacy of the black letter law and thought deeper in time. | |
<
< | Despite my best efforts, I was struggling to apply those concepts to law school. I understood all the little bits and pieces of information as they flew at me, but the beast itself, the Law, was always out of my grasp. And how could I have comprehended the beast? As I discovered two days ago, I was deep in the thicket with both my eyes scratched out, and lacked both the sight, and insight to know what was happening to me. | >
> | Despite my best efforts, I was struggling to apply those concepts to law school. I understood all the little bits and pieces of information as they flew at me, but the beast itself, the Law, was always out of my grasp. And how could I have comprehended the beast? As I discovered two days ago, I was deep in the thicket with both my eyes scratched out, and lacked both the sight and the insight to know what was happening to me. | | | Poetry for the Blinded | | | If insight is a moment of true nuclear randomness, I admit I have wasted everyone's time - the inputs and outputs are set, and we just have to wait for the right time and place for insight to strike. However, if insight can be better understood and unraveled like any other phenomena, part of the craft of lawyering should be to alter the variables in our lives to replicate these moments of profound clarity and inspiration. A truly consilient theory of the world would benefit greatly from understanding the mechanism of insight.
| |
>
> | First, I really liked the first part of your essay; it was engaging and personal, and more importantly (if I understood your point correctly) it pointed out one of the main features of our legal system - it is fluid and constantly unfolding, and as lawyers we need to adapt to it and work within it with a consilient approach, in order to become a force to change it.
I was, however, a little confused about your main thesis - I was not sure exactly what your thesis is. It seems to me there are two themes loosely connected: 1. insight can be a tool to help us utilize and apply our knowledge; 2. it is possible to find a mechanism to generate such insight. I assume you are arguing that human insights are necessary to create consilient thinking, but I feel that was not properly expounded in your essay. This may be due to a disconnect between the "Insight and Science" section and the section on "Insight and Law." Perhaps I just don't understand "Insight and Law" section that well, but it seems to me you are making a huge assumption that insights can be created. A better way, to me, to formulate your argument is to say that human insights are integral to consilient thinking (not just one "accommodating" the other), and as lawyers, we analogously like scientists, ought to utilize our insights in order to perform consilient thinking.
Note: Sorry for the delay in edit - I will add more to this soon, but I would love to know whether if I am making the correct assumptions about your essay.
| | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |