RE: Has Philosophy over stepped it's boundaries?
August 31, 2014 at 8:04 pm
(This post was last modified: August 31, 2014 at 8:04 pm by Dystopia.)
(August 31, 2014 at 7:47 pm)PhiloTech Wrote:(August 31, 2014 at 2:12 pm)Blackout Wrote: As a law student I don't think philosophy should have a higher place when it comes to jurisprudence - We need good solutions and justice/security - Philosophy only serves the purpose of determining What is justice? What is the law? Why do laws exist and answering other ambiguous questions - But other than that objectivity and precision are far more important.
Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law.
Have you not heard of H.L.A Hart or Ronald Dworkin? There is much work on this very topic already.
Anytime you practice law you are practicing a jurisprudence or philosophy of law.
Jurisprudence is the study of law and it's foundations, it's not merely philosophy, the philosophical pillars will come with time but in my opinion understanding practical solutions is far more important than memorizing all theoretical concepts - Both are important, but Law is inherently a practical science because it leads to a legal effect on the concrete real life case - That's when law fulfils it's purpose, in practical daily life - It's not a theoretical science unlike what some people may think - And yes Law with a capital L, involving not only written laws but all set of rules and principles that regulate how humans live in society is factually a science, when I finish my masters I can consider myself a small scientist in the middle of other hundreds. Still thinking about the topic of my thesis, and still don't know.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you