tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post8001272551608777627..comments2023-12-21T06:35:36.624-05:00Comments on Recursivity: Summary of Pascal Lecture by Charles Rice (Part 2)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-75084355165254195892012-03-27T14:57:58.124-04:002012-03-27T14:57:58.124-04:00Thank you for your perspective, Anonymous.Thank you for your perspective, Anonymous.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-36554168179281184082012-03-27T05:37:25.066-04:002012-03-27T05:37:25.066-04:00Professor, I'm anonymous who quoted Voltaire.
...Professor, I'm anonymous who quoted Voltaire.<br /><br />I have taken sometime off to do some reflection, on my own, on this whole controversy and certainly I'm surprised that you only have disagreements with everything Rice said. The only positive note I found was that he looks like 65 though he is 80...which somehow doesn't sit well with me, but I suppose, I should write my own blog if I wanted to say positive things about Rice.<br /><br />As a result, I shall focus on your comments.<br /><br /><i>"... Rice behaved almost as if it were an undergraduate lecture... "</i><br /><br />By this statements, you are suggesting that professors aren't well-prepared for their undergrad lectures. If this was the first lecture of a semester course, I would certainly stop going to class.<br /><br /><i> "It's like Rice never heard of any other legal theory. How about John Rawls and his Theory of Justice?" </i><br /><br />Let me clarify on this, as Rice did a poor job here too. Philosophy of law, an underlying theme of his talk, is concerned with philosophical issues arising in law and legal institutions. Questions like, "what is law?" and "what should it be?" are raised within the domain of philosophy of law.<br /><br />John Rawls' Theory of Justice is not, as you claim it, a legal theory. Its a work in political philosophy as it relates to social justice. Questions like "what is a just society?", "how to achieve it?" are expounded here.<br /><br />There are two (some say three or four) theories in philosophy of law. Natural law and legal positivism are the most important ones, and the other one is legal realism, but I personally feel that it is the same as legal positivism. I felt like Rice did provide valid arguments against legal positivism. Though, I don't believe in Rice's version of natural law, as I don't think, I can be certain of God's existence or non-existence. If anyone likes to know more about any of these theories, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a good resource, I'm certainly not an expert in this area, so I shall refrain from explaining them.<br /><br /><i> "Again, why should we base our reasoning & law on what some 13th century philosopher, ignorant of biology and neurophysiology, said? In modern biology the idea that a "basic inclination" of an organism is the "preservation of the species" is laughable; that's group selection." </i><br /><br />Here is what I think:<br /><br />First, soundness of reasoning has nothing to do with era it is from. If an argument is reasonable, it is reasonable forever. I think, this is more of a comment than an argument against your statement.<br /><br />Secondly, the practice and conception of law, like it or not, is heavily based on Roman and Greek tradition more than science of present day. Aristotle is possibly one of the most influential figure, if not the most, in law. This 13th century philosopher you speak of hardly did anything more than simply comment and expand on Aristotle's work.<br /><br />Every law school has at least one faculty member who specializes in philosophy of law, and usually, but not always, this faculty member holds cross-appointments with classics and/or philosophy department as they usually are interested in ancient philosophy.<br /><br /><i>"...in modern physics, it is possible to create a system that is both vibrating and not vibrating at the same time. The real world could well be more complicated than simple Aristotelian logic might suggest." </i><br /><br />Correct me if I am wrong, but this is also formal logic?<br /><br /> <i> "A little ironic that he would refer to Rosa Parks, since what gay people want is similar to what Rosa Parks fought for." </i><br /><br />EXACTLY! This is what I was going to ask during question period. But, the idiot in the audience kept on asking question about God's existence and moral truth.<br /><br />Thanks for posting the summary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-53484952945781390482012-03-24T18:59:55.921-04:002012-03-24T18:59:55.921-04:00Jeff ...
Thanks for the summary. While I am, as ...Jeff ... <br /><br />Thanks for the summary. While I am, as you know, not particularly hostile to the religious, this sounds rather bad.<br /><br />"How can you tell who is right?"<br /><br />Umm ... could Rice actually hold that we can't tell the difference between Hitler and Francis of Assisi (at least the one of legend) without reading the Bible? Is it "relativism" to acknowledge what virtually anyone who has two neurons to rub together would admit? <br /><br />Rice continues in the tradition of giving "religious thought" a bad name.John Pierethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17336244849636477317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-50401214877810807342012-03-23T10:52:39.052-04:002012-03-23T10:52:39.052-04:00Well, a good movie review can tell you whether *yo...Well, a good movie review can tell you whether *you* would like a movie or not, no matter whether the reviewer liked or disliked the movie.KeithBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-79179890068618228592012-03-22T21:00:26.757-04:002012-03-22T21:00:26.757-04:00I forgot to add to Anonymous who thinks "your...I forgot to add to Anonymous who thinks "your summary of the lectures, as you point out in your first paragraph, are certainly biased": feel free to correct me on anything.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-23751214920361449672012-03-22T20:41:59.336-04:002012-03-22T20:41:59.336-04:00OMG:
One of my favorite professors, Jeffrey Shall...OMG: <br />One of my favorite professors, Jeffrey Shallit, attended the recent Charles Rice lecture and wrote up a brief summary with comments.<br /> Part I<br /> Part II<br /> Q/A Session<br /> <br />(Personally, I was amazed at the level of arguments presented by this "professor", kind of afraid of what he could be teaching in Law class...)<br /><br />FYI, Jeff, I second this observation taken from http://www.omguw.com/2012/03/12343.html#commentsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-53975134858439837332012-03-22T13:30:56.364-04:002012-03-22T13:30:56.364-04:00Well, Columbia University invited Iranian Presiden...Well, Columbia University invited <a href="http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Iranian_President_Ahmadinejad_speaks_at_Columbia_University" rel="nofollow">Iranian President Ahmadinejad</a> to speak. That's a pretty bold move with possible negative repercussions. <br /><br />There's also many attempts by creationists and other pseudoscientists to try to get invited to speak at universities (or schedule conferences at universities) to try to claim scientific legitimacy for their views.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-56594084828026885022012-03-22T12:23:23.573-04:002012-03-22T12:23:23.573-04:00I was considering after the lecture at what point ...I was considering after the lecture at what point should the university not allow someone to come lecture here. I certainly think Dr. Rice was in the realm of an acceptable lecturer, even with some bigoted statements and more subtle suggestions of intolerance that he's made. However, is there a point where having someone lecture at the school damages it's reputation, either because the lecturer has made statements that are too intolerant or is lecturing on a topic that is too non-sensical? <br /><br />I realize there's no answer to this question, but I'm just curious what you or anyone else thinks.tarobinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17961343066152121105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-44589214581909177292012-03-22T12:09:14.303-04:002012-03-22T12:09:14.303-04:00At Anonymous: I was one of the protesters, and a ...At Anonymous: I was one of the protesters, and a queer student. I think its great you went to the talk. I think more of us should have, to show that we're open to freedom of speech. That said, I do agree that a lot of Rice's writings really do deserve the criticism that is provided in this post. If Rice respected us, he could have dialogued with us, instead of sneaking in the back.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-3157024109836413942012-03-22T07:07:26.734-04:002012-03-22T07:07:26.734-04:00Of course my mind was not open, Anonymous, because...Of <i>course</i> my mind was not open, Anonymous, because I spent many hours before the lecture actually reading Rice's writings. A man is judged not on the contents of a single lecture, but his whole body of work.<br /><br />As for your Voltaire quote, you may want to know that I urged the University administration <i>not</i> to cancel the talk and I also urged the protesters not to try to get it cancelled.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-44882149721949789452012-03-22T04:10:27.473-04:002012-03-22T04:10:27.473-04:00With all due respect sir, I was there and being a ...With all due respect sir, I was there and being a queer individual and an agnostic, I had my disagreements with Prof. Rice. But, I decided to go there with an open mind. I feel as if you somehow did had already made up your mind about this issue, long before you went to the lecture.<br /><br />In anycase, the only point I would like to make is that going into the lectures, I felt like, I was being judged, by my fellow-queers, professors (who showed up in large numbers)... if the protests were supposed to support queer community, I felt a bit unsafe there. <br /><br />At the end, I felt, Prof. Rice did deserve some respect, and your summary of the lectures, as you point out in your first paragraph, are certainly biased. <br /><br />I think my only comment to Prof Rice was, <br />"I may disagree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."<br />- VoltaireAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com