Wednesday, January 30, 2008
 | So I should be reading about standing in federal courts right now, but there's nothing like Constitutional jurisprudence to get the philosophical neurons firing. Besides, I haven't blogged about law school lately (which isn't a bad thing). The penultimate semester is off to a start, and I have more practical courses this semester. But sprinkle a bit of Fed Cts on top, and that's enough academic mastrubation for the semester. Had trial ad tonight, which was interesting. Aside from being unprepared because of a weekend of binge drinking, a couple weeks in the class have illustrated how I have not resolved a conflict I have noticed from the beginning of law school. In my life-long search for truth, I was of course influenced by Western thought and Philosophy. And in those early days, I fell into the destructive trap. I thought that there has to be something deeper. So, I tried to break down everything, trying to find what that deeper was, what "it really meant," what was "truth." And in that mindset, I was more skeptical, always thinking, "that can't be it, there has to be something else." But after stepping out of my myopic self-validation (if there's more than what people think, then I had to be more right than them just by "knowing" that right?) and actually pushing myself, I traveled a path as documented by Persig in "Zen" and "Lila." Of course, I didn't recognize how prophetic those books would be until I was at the end of the same path. Where that path ends is the realization is that there isn't anything more. Things just are. Truth is a verb, not a noun. Of course, this had been known by the ancient Chinese, with Camus and Niezche eventually discovering it on their own centuries later. This truth, that at times, there isn't anything more, that some things just are, is at conflict in an advasarial philosophy. If I'm right, you must be wrong. Or, if you're right, then I must be wrong, and that would be bad. |
No comments:
Post a Comment