11 January 2014

Law Sounds and Philosophy

This post is a playful attempt to explain how to use philosophy to illuminate and elucidate legal problems. Philosophy, here, should be broadly interpreted: at least to include legal theory. For any readers who arrived here in search for music, check out Daylight Robbery Records and listen as you read.


Rhythmically Textual

Law is loud. The telly's on, too. The radio plays white noise on a loop. The dog barks incessantly. A musical illiterate hammers chopsticks on the piano in the corner to make any grand aspirations oxymoronic.

Among the hustle, you listen for the right words, the well-strung sentences to validate your argument. You strain your ears. A tune echoes from the crowd.

To discover whether it is a tune, to distinguish from squeaky chairs and scratching pens, you consider philosophy's use as DJ software. It separates the voices and topics, partitions the viewpoints, and shows you the dog barks because someone at the party thinks dog whistles are novel--the puppy thinks a game is afoot.

With philosophy, you're able to pick up the tune you thought you heard. The software is unfamiliar but you click behaviourist buttons, slide Socrates' sliders, spin dialectic discs, and toggle the epistemological equaliser. Now the tune is more than a few notes. There's some heavy base, too. Even a hook. Definitely a snare. With enough reflection you might even hear a whole opera--even if you're embarrassed to realise what use you've put your DJ skills to.


Created: 10 January 2014. Version 1.0.





You May Also Like…

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for your comments.

Comments are moderated. Inappropriate comments and spam will be deleted. rel="nofollow" is in effect for backlinks.