> > I don't know the debate with Singer and didn't comment on it.
>
>My bad. I referred to it during a larger conversation on pragmatism and
>I'm
>pretty sure you agreed with what I passed along secondhand (i.e. we should
>not allow the best of arguments to persuade us to act counterintuitively).
Within limits I do agree with that.
>While Singer gave reasons for his views, Posner repeated himself.
Yeah, we prags do that. We tend not to be impressed by awesome arguments for ridiculosu conclusions. Modus ponens, modus tollens, equally valid. Btrw Rorty gets the same beady eye from you overbuilt argument freaks. He was my teacher.
>
> > Posner is at
> > least as good as Dworkin as a technical philosopher (he might not take
>that
> > as much of a compliment),
>
>Dworkin must be some rhetorician, then, because his counterarguments to
>Posner have always appeared persuasive to me.
He is a rhetoretician. Besides' he's a liberal,s o we like his conclusions better.
And furthermore, you are almost always wrong.
>
> > and much better as a lawyer.
>
>Not pertinent.
I'm not so sure.
>But an AP's range should extend beyond the philosophy
>of law. Wasn't Posner's most ambitious stab at ethics was the former
>thesis
>you mention below?
Why don'y you read him and see?
>\ I've heard his economic theory of
>law is quite interesting. But I can't understand what's distinctly
>philosophical about it.
>
Who cares?
jks
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx