<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What&#8217;s Wrong with Jurisprudence? Part II</title>
	<link>http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/122</link>
	<description>Notes from the intersection of law, society, technology, economics, and culture</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 05:27:35 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Neo-formalist wannabe</title>
		<link>http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/122#comment-294</link>
		<author>Neo-formalist wannabe</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:08:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/122#comment-294</guid>
		<description>I confess that I am not quite sure who Nico is responding to.  His description of legal philosophy as obsessed with moral philosophy seems to apply mainly to Dworkin and his (remarkably small) body of disciples.  It seems to me that Patterson is spot on with regard to the vast swath of most analytic philosophy of law.

Furthermore, at least in the area of private law, it seems to me that some of the very best work -- such as that of Coleman or Jody Kraus -- rather explicitly seeks to engage economic theories of law.  Furthermore, the days when the philosophical analysis of law and economics consisted of jeremiads against Jeremey Bentham recylced by inserting Richard Posner's name in place of Benthams are blessedly passed.  In other words, it seems to me that analytic philosophers of law are engaging "social philosophy," they simply aren't engaging the rather fuzzy and dense form of social philosophy represented by Habermas and other continental social theorists.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I confess that I am not quite sure who Nico is responding to.  His description of legal philosophy as obsessed with moral philosophy seems to apply mainly to Dworkin and his (remarkably small) body of disciples.  It seems to me that Patterson is spot on with regard to the vast swath of most analytic philosophy of law.</p>
<p>Furthermore, at least in the area of private law, it seems to me that some of the very best work &#8212; such as that of Coleman or Jody Kraus &#8212; rather explicitly seeks to engage economic theories of law.  Furthermore, the days when the philosophical analysis of law and economics consisted of jeremiads against Jeremey Bentham recylced by inserting Richard Posner&#8217;s name in place of Benthams are blessedly passed.  In other words, it seems to me that analytic philosophers of law are engaging &#8220;social philosophy,&#8221; they simply aren&#8217;t engaging the rather fuzzy and dense form of social philosophy represented by Habermas and other continental social theorists.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
