Philosopher Lawyer
Posted on December 10, 2007 - Filed Under Philosophy |
This idea occurred to me while watching Harvey Birdman Attorney at Law, so it probably isn’t very good. Still though, wouldn’t someone with a degree in philosophy make a very decent lawyer? Law is all about arguing, and what better teaches one about how to argue than years of studying arguments and writing essays on the most profound issues known to man? Defending a client’s loutish drunken behaviour, or prosecuting a suspected murderer, or any other such legal activity would be child’s play to someone who can dance through Kantian metaphysics or someone with a full grasp of all Plato’s philosophy. In terms of complexity, the subtleties of a constitution are no match at all for the nuances of most philosophical texts. Anyone who can construct and dismantle arguments not set within the boundaries of established legal parameters can surely do exactly the same thing within them, with much less thought, since the scope is so much narrower. Doesn’t this at least sound plausible?
Comments
10 Responses to “Philosopher Lawyer”
Leave a Reply
You can dance through Kantian metaphysics?
I think you’d make a good barrister. researching stuff and fine points and what not. You could be my barrister.
Right. I have my doctor, my barrister and my chemist. Now I need one of my friends to study Off-Licence ownership.
Waltz. Kantian metaphysics is in a very traditional 3/4 time sig.
Boland , i told you from day one , to be a solicitor.I’m glad your finally coming around to my way of thinking, even if it is about 3 years too late.
You make philosophy sound somewhat challanging almost. Who would have known writing things which are wrong/daft/useless/make no sense was actually acceptable, as long as it was packaged as an “argument”.
Peer review involves argueing back in an equally daft way, as opposed to being logical, saying your wrong , and shunning them, like science. And notice how science runs the world and philosospy is only for arts students.
Discuss. oh Wait. dont actually.
There are no subelties of law sadly.
-Write will.
-Granny dies.
-Issue will.
-???
-profit.
or something like that. As huggy used say, leaches and sponges all.
I feel obliged to point out that you can’t have science without philosophy, not to mention that back in ancient times, philosophy and science went hand in clammy hand.
only because science didnt know any better. Why cant you have science without philosophy? We do nowdays
I don’t think so. Not that I claim to know the first thing about science but it’s my understanding that the principle of falsifiability plays a key role in positing any theory/hypothesis/proposition. Not to mention that philosophy (along with mathematics) has a claim on the foundation of logic which is essential for making scientific claims.
I thought science was about just going ‘i wonder what’ll happen when i do x to y’
Were x is a verb and y is something very dangerous that x should never be done to.
wait.. no x can’t be a verd..
‘I do kick’
Kantian metaphysics posits the quasi-dualistic notion of phenomena which are subject to and also the basis for scientific verification, and noumena which, due to being exclusive of phenomena, are scientifically indescribable.
*Hopstep,triple step,triple step.
That was relevant, wasn’t it?
*checks
…yeah?