Law in Contemporary Society

View   r6  >  r5  ...
RicardoWooleryFirstPaper 6 - 24 Aug 2009 - Main.EbenMoglen
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="FirstPaper"
*The mechanics of eliminating the Godcon merely bring into focus initial questions in addressing the issue of the Lawcon*
Line: 36 to 36
 
Deleted:
<
<
 \ No newline at end of file
Added:
>
>
  • The real purpose of the essay in this draft seems to me to be to strike a blow on behalf of freedom of thought. Organized religion's defect is shown to be the unquestioning deference to external authority on the central philosophical question, what makes my human life meaningful? The issue of the movement of money, as you say, isn't really what you're thinking about. While Leff, who is at pains to point out that he isn't drawing conclusions about which ecclesial organizations are "cons" and which are "sales," is not proposing to "remove the broker" from any relation between men and gods. The point of contact between the two subjects you discuss isn't "con," therefore, but the importance to you of freedom of thought—the preservation of your intellectual and moral autonomy.

  • From my point of view, therefore, Leff could be subtracted from the setting. The result would be a loss of complexity without loss of relevance to your actual concerns, which seems all to the good. I'm not sure whether the analogy between your departure from organized religion and your approach to law school is important, but whether you decide to keep the comparison, it seems to me that Leff illuminates the wrong parts of it.

Revision 6r6 - 24 Aug 2009 - 13:03:08 - EbenMoglen
Revision 5r5 - 26 May 2009 - 22:34:30 - RicardoWoolery
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM