Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 78

Thread: Denial of Nature a product of Post Modernism?

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Location
    Baraboo, Wisconsin
    Posts
    7,697

    Re: Denial of Nature a product of Post Modernism?

    "Sounds like yet another lawyer who has lost touch with reality. Why do you care what he says?"

    Please don't confuse a Harvard Law School professor with a lawyer. The only common ground between the two is that both graduated from law school and passed a bar examination at some point in their lives. Beyond that there's no similarity. Lawyers practice law. Harvard Law School professors wouldn't know a court room or a client from a turnip. They spend a couple hours a week in the class room where they indoctrinate students in the latest left wing BS and spend the rest of their time gadding about spouting the same left wing BS to an adoring left wing media.
    Brian Ellis
    Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
    a mile away and you'll have their shoes.

  2. #22
    Dave Karp
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    2,960

    Re: Denial of Nature a product of Post Modernism?

    Regardless of your political beliefs, there are law professors on all sides of the political spectrum that actually practice some law as well, including some from Harvard. As I noted before, Tribe has practiced repeatedly, with success, arguing real cases before a moderate to conservative U.S. supreme court. Most lawyers never even have the chance to go there, other than to watch.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Location
    Baraboo, Wisconsin
    Posts
    7,697

    Re: Denial of Nature a product of Post Modernism?

    Oh come on Dave, you weren't supposed to respond rationally to my little rant. : - ) I know some law professors are permitted to take occasional cases. However, having briefly served on the faculty at two law schools (NYU and the University of Florida) and also having practiced law for over 30 years, I believe the ratio of liberal to conservative law professors is on the order of 50 to 1 and there's a big difference between practicing law on a full-time basis for one's livelihood and taking the occasional case to supplement one's income or advance a cause while teaching.
    Brian Ellis
    Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
    a mile away and you'll have their shoes.

  4. #24
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,796

    Re: Denial of Nature a product of Post Modernism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Ellis
    "Sounds like yet another lawyer who has lost touch with reality. Why do you care what he says?"

    Please don't confuse a Harvard Law School professor with a lawyer. ... They spend a couple hours a week in the class room where they indoctrinate students in the latest left wing BS and spend the rest of their time gadding about spouting the same left wing BS to an adoring left wing media.
    ahh, ok .. so lawyer=good, law professor=bad.
    i think i got it.

  5. #25
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,796

    Re: Denial of Nature a product of Post Modernism?

    Quote Originally Posted by cyrus
    Since Tribe is a law professor, I think by "natural" he's referring to the debate between Legal Naturalism and Legal Positivism, two general theories of Western jurisprudence. This doesn't have much to do with "nature" as such, nor photography of nature. In fact, Tribe's assertion of removing the "naturalistic" would benefit photographers...
    That sounds like what he's talking about to me.

    Most of the outrage about Tribe boils down to assuming you know what he means without really asking.

  6. #26
    Dave Karp
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    2,960

    Re: Denial of Nature a product of Post Modernism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Ellis
    Oh come on Dave, you weren't supposed to respond rationally to my little rant. : - ) I know some law professors are permitted to take occasional cases. However, having briefly served on the faculty at two law schools (NYU and the University of Florida) and also having practiced law for over 30 years, I believe the ratio of liberal to conservative law professors is on the order of 50 to 1 and there's a big difference between practicing law on a full-time basis for one's livelihood and taking the occasional case to supplement one's income or advance a cause while teaching.
    I guess that's the problem with Internet discussions rather than face to face. Without the emoticons, it is hard to tell.

    And yes, there are many law professors who have not even taken a bar exam or represented a client in their life. I think that is a real problem, but that goes to our educational system, not the subject of this discussion. And yes, there are many liberal law professors, although the ratio of liberal to conservative and liberal to moderate is probably different today than it was in prior years (more conservatives). When talking about Tribe however, I think we can also consider him an accomplished appellate lawyer and law professor, rather than a professor who dabbles in appellate work.

  7. #27
    Resident Heretic Bruce Watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    USA, North Carolina
    Posts
    3,362

    Re: Denial of Nature a product of Post Modernism?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Kasaian
    Why do I care? Nature is the main reason for my futzing about the hills with a 'dorff and I can't help taking offense...
    You care because you are offended. OK. But your being offended is under your control, not his. The only reason he offends you is because you let him. Stop letting him. Stop listening to him. Stop enabling him. Stop spreading his ideas - that is, stop talking about him and posting about him.

    His ideas are only important is you let them be. The way you refuse to let them be important is to ignore them.

    So ignore the idiot. Go make some real art.

    Bruce Watson

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    2,428

    Re: Denial of Nature a product of Post Modernism?

    > might have been Al Gore's boy for the Supreme Court if Gore had been elected president

    Not likely. I bet someone 25 years ago that Tribe would not be Democrat's next Supreme Court pick, back when there still were Democrats, and it even less likely now.

    I think your friend is misrepresenting what Tribe has to say. I would certainly not stay up nights worrying about it, and worrying about arcane legal theory is part of my day job. He would not find bugs and bunnies (of either kind) uncontitutional in the unlikely event he ends up on the Court.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    San Joaquin Valley, California
    Posts
    9,599

    Re: Denial of Nature a product of Post Modernism?

    Quote Originally Posted by chris jordan
    Hey guys, especially John, what Mr. Tribe is talking about has absolutely NOTHING to do with paving over Yosemite and killing all the critters. Several posters have already said that here, and they're right.

    Modern legal theory recognizes that there aren't any natural, automatic, God-given rights; all rights and duties between people are the results of our choices, transactions, negotiations, and power-wielding. For example, Christians say that fetuses have a "right" to life, given to them by God. Others argue that women have a natural "right" to an abortion. Which one is it? Neither one. The answer is purely political; there is nowhere we can look to find out what is the "natural" answer to a question like that, or to any other question of human rights.

    Another example: does God give Starbucks a natural "right" to use aggressive cut-throat practices to put a competing local coffee shop out of business? Or does the competing business have a "natural" right to exist because it was there first? Obviously there is no natural law that governs any of that; the answer is decided by society and politics, not by God or concepts of what is "natural."

    That's why Tribe says we need to eliminate the word "natural" from discussions of human rights; he simply recognizes that there is no "natural" when it comes to deciding who gets what in our complex modern world.

    Tribe also is an environmentalist, a passionate advocate for animal rights, and a solid intelligent practical liberal thinker whose philosopies are in many areas are consistent with Al Gore's, if you happen to be in that camp. So beware of taking one out-of-context phrase that you misunderstood, and using it to write off a guy who otherwise might carry a lot of credibility if you knew what he was talking about.
    I was briefly discussing this point with my lawyer a few hours ago. It was pointed out to me that the framers held fast to the concept of natural law. Whether you agree with it or not it is part of the framework of US Government and the basis for how democracy became the poster child of the enlightenment. If it needs to be changed, there certainly are ways to do that but the judicial branch is not the place---it is not interpreting the Constitution but rewriting it's meaning. Not only is this IMHO unconstitutional, but it is erroneous to the point of absurdity since the concept of Natural law espoused my Madison, Jefferson, and Adams and the rest of the boys had its basis in Thomism and the Greeks, and not as later scholars assert, the Nietche revisionist diatribe version that came along 100 years later.

    If it is wrong to view Natural Law in the Thomistic sense, then why is it right to view Natural Law in the Nietchean? Nietche wasn't even around! It is a compound of errors and not something that fosters trust in the judicial branch and certainly dosen't speak well for Tribe, unless he wants to be painted as a huckster.

    As far as "Natural" determining who gets what in our modern world, consider that
    very few of us live in Our Modern World. Nature has a greater say in who gets what in most of the developing world---if we suddenly had to do without fuel or electricity Nature would have a lot to say about who gets what in the modern, developed world too.

    As far as killing critters and paving the wilderness, I think taking the "Natural" out of the language could lead to just that, as it sets a precedent at odds with current thinking. We pass laws to preserve species and protect envirements not because it is up to the government to decide which species deserves to be around for our progeny--we do it out of a sense of stewardship, preserving what has been given to us (by God, Nature, Thor, Zeus etc...) for future generations. A rattlesnake is IMHO not the most pleasant critter yet it is deserving of preservation from extinction as a species, isn't it? A tiny fish that lives in a mud hole in Death Valley might not even be missed by whatever it is that feeds on it, but it is still a living thing deserving of protection and we may be the only ones capable of providing that protection. Tribe's agenda, if carried to its logical conclusion permits individuals (hence governments) to base which species lives and which becomes extinct on ....on what? Economic grounds? Cuddle factor? No direction or reason other than "...because autonomy is the only cardinal virtue." I beg to assert thats not progress if such is in fact the case.
    "I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    San Joaquin Valley, California
    Posts
    9,599

    Re: Denial of Nature a product of Post Modernism?

    Quote Originally Posted by tim atherton
    Okay - quick though while I'm still processing this... What about the people of Louisiana or Thailand? Isn't the idea of fulfillment in Nature at times a rather quaint, culturally specific Walden Pond sort of thing? It is just one limited response to certain aspects of nature Post-Enlightenment?
    I don't think the tragedies in Thailand or Louisiana are proof the Natural Law is a rather quaint and culturally specific Walden Pond thing.
    I'm certainly not a scholar, but one point that stand out in the Summa IIRC is that a greater force of nature will overpower a lesser force. Wind and water can errode rock. for example. The sea is a power that is quite able to overpower a lesser force with catastrophic results. Tribe's agenda to eliminate "the Natural" obscures the potential for being overcome by the greater force of "the Natural" be it a tsumani, hurricane, or bird flu or meteor. Nature asTribe leads me to believe, infringes on our autonomy so lets take it out of the language. An ostriche is pretty autonomous when it's got it's head stuck in a hole.
    "I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White

Similar Threads

  1. Post modernism photgraphy
    By Sarah Carroll in forum On Photography
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 17-Nov-2005, 17:25
  2. Wwhat Is Post Modernism In Photography?
    By REBECA in forum On Photography
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 31-May-2002, 03:36

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •