Legal Theory - -Realist perspective on Great Expectations...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
-Realist perspective on Great Expectations may be different than a Romantics persepective on what makes Great Expectations a great novel. -they disagree theoretically but can still have a discussion intelligently- focusing on same object and have same date set as their focus -Romantic: relations establish a context, the realist knows what your talking about but may disagree -Joe- pips step uncle, marries one of pips love prospects, is a poor blacksmith but deserves the title of gentleman -theoretical disagreement: same data (Dickens novels, intent on his writings) so agree on data and analysis but disagree on what makes a great novel different from those arguing over the difference between savings banks and river banks (semantic sting) -Dworkin: organizing discussions over common law and literature eliminates the semantic sting -theoretical disagreement is pervasive, must also accept semantic theorists worries Intent -cavel and la strada -cavel imagines a conversation with Calini/ Phalini (??) -Cavel says he’d be inclined to treat references as Intented- argues that current interpretive ways can change what can legitimately be viewed as the original intent of the author -Rhenquist: take concept of fairness and apply it to something that makes him change his mind, would be unfaithful to his instructions to apply the rules that aren’t fair -author gave permission to do best conception of the artwork in its best light, so legitimately viewed as part of the original intent -consitution deliberately made up of vague standards, judge can use own interpretations -author instructs interpreter to convey the best original intention, author has instructed us to realize the best conception- must be strictly for orginal intent even if author wouldn’t have thought of it -Musician in 19 th century: Ravell- completes most important piano composition, interpretor took Ravells work and wrote piece full of complex metaphors- someone has to look at them to figure out how to play it, Ravell then determines this was his original intent because it was so phenomenal -artists like Ravell prefer to have their music interpreted same way constitution founders would not want literalists, they would want thinkers -interpreter in each situation must include the character from the work, persuasive argument based on the works character poses a binding threat (judge and law/ constitution) -can confidently evaluate strength or weakness of the argument once it has been made -this is what Dworkin considers essential if you want to interepret the law as a judge -Dworkin says judge operates by using discretion, recognizes this claim needs defense -conflicting views on original intent vs content (play merchant of Venice and the constitution) - what to do with shylock- to not stereotype, what to do with shoplifter in 8 th amendment -Skeptic: Stanly Fish: oponent of dworkin: neither of the 2 interpretations can be better than the other- both subjective
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/21/2011 for the course POLS 4080 taught by Professor Kaufman during the Fall '10 term at University of Georgia Athens.

Page1 / 7

Legal Theory - -Realist perspective on Great Expectations...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online