Law in Contemporary Society

View   r11  >  r10  ...
NonUnitarySelfRealizingCohen 11 - 07 Jan 2010 - Main.IanSullivan
Line: 1 to 1
Changed:
<
<
META TOPICPARENT name="CohenTopics"
>
>
META TOPICPARENT name="OldDiscussionMaterials"
 Question 1: Application of the Unitary & Non-Unitary Self Distinctions: Within class we probed the fiction of the unitary-self. We recognized the potential danger in treating as pathologies variations in humans’ behavior/inner-states. I am willing to accept that a skilled attorney understands and is attentive to the multiplicity of persons within an individual. I acknowledge the danger of the unitary-self outlook is that the subscriber to this outlook is less likely to take notice of human “aberrations.” What is less clear to me is how being sensitive to the non-unitary self concept further skills the attorney who presumes a unitary-self but recognizes the range of human emotion and tailors his actions accordingly. Is there a practical difference between these two outlooks? Is it that the non-unitary-self concept compels one not to merely recognize the multiplicity of human states but to search for their causes in prior experiences? If yes, then what bearing and what benefit does this have on persuasive advocacy before non-realist justices?

  • Consider the differences in the theory of persuasion (an aspect of social psychology) that would be entailed by a change in theory of personality (an aspect of intra-psychic psychology) if one concluded that human beings have multiple, interacting, not necessarily inter-conscious personalities.

Revision 11r11 - 07 Jan 2010 - 22:14:31 - IanSullivan
Revision 10r10 - 04 Feb 2009 - 16:48:18 - AnjaliBhat
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.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM