I\u2019m reading a work called \u201cLegal Modernism\u201d by David Luban now, the first chapter in a larger work. It sets up Critical Legal Studies (CLS) in relation to how Modern art, and Modernism more broadly, respond to pre-modern art. Modernism is self-critical and iconoclastic. <\/span><\/span> Under its neo-Kantian interpretation, however, I have claimed that it amounts to much more (or less) than an undifferentiated negation of the premodernist tradition. (p.71)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Simple enough. Pre-modern law, art, and philosophy took itself for granted as reaching into the bowels of reality and exposing them, frozen in time, to all who wished to look on. <\/span><\/span> Modernism sees that reality is never frozen and, more importantly, that the subject (s\/he who \u2018looks on\u2019) is an intimate part of reality, in dialogue, or better \u2013 dialectic \u2013 with it. Reality cannot be given to the viewer. The viewer must be pulled out of this false \u2018gods eye view\u2019. To do this requires tension. <\/span> Law, like philosophy, must engage us as the participants that we are. Law must be engaged with as the living, growing, moving thing that it is. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Yet this is hardly the start of a decent paper.<\/p>\n So I\u2019m taking a Philosophy of Law course now and have to choose a final paper topic. I need help. Law has never been of much interest to me: perhaps because I\u2019ve always seen only its surface \u2013 the \u2018laws\u2019 out there. I\u2019ve never much bothered to examine how\/why the laws come to be: historical […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":118,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-648","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n
<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/span>
In philosophy and law it is the same. To seek a Truth which may be put into law or philosophical treatise is to deny one\u2019s responsibility as partaker and participant in Truth. The pursuit of Truth \u2018out there\u2019 was good \u2013 for its time \u2013 but cannot sustain itself. Truth \u2018out there\u2019 is, as the Dalai Lama says of war, \u2018out of date\u2019. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7907151-7415647337852054411?l=americanbuddhist.blogspot.com\")