Law School Discussion

My Yale 250 - Have at it

Bodhisattva

Re: My Yale 250 - Have at it
« Reply #40 on: December 31, 2005, 09:27:09 PM »
I did like your Roosevelt reference though!

redemption

Re: My Yale 250 - Have at it
« Reply #41 on: December 31, 2005, 09:28:14 PM »
I see. You don't agree with my pov. Fair enough. Thanks for the input.

Bodhisattva

Re: My Yale 250 - Have at it
« Reply #42 on: December 31, 2005, 09:29:48 PM »
Well, I'm just saying, be careful what you say to Yale.

Just out of curiosity, have you actually studied Kant, or only commentary on his writing?

redemption

Re: My Yale 250 - Have at it
« Reply #43 on: December 31, 2005, 09:33:12 PM »

I've read all the Crtiques, though not in German. Does that count?

The 80+ years of life expectacy... who is the "us" you are referring to?

Yale's unofficial motto: "anything you can do, we can do meta". I feel like I have the licence to be me in the 250. Not worth not being me just to get in.


Bodhisattva

Re: My Yale 250 - Have at it
« Reply #44 on: December 31, 2005, 09:39:14 PM »
Well by "us" I was referring to Westerners.  But even in the whole world, life expectancies have largely gone WAY up.  Even in "third world" countries, expectancies in the 60s or 70s are not uncommon.  This is a remarkable situation. Remember, people were expected to die by 50 100 years ago in America.

http://www.os-connect.com/pop/p1.htm

Yes, there are bad spots like Africa.


redemption

Re: My Yale 250 - Have at it
« Reply #45 on: December 31, 2005, 09:48:39 PM »
Yes, shame about Africa. Ah well. We must embrace our suffering after all :-)

Bodhisattva

Re: My Yale 250 - Have at it
« Reply #46 on: December 31, 2005, 09:50:40 PM »
What do you think a Kantian approach to the current state of affairs would be?   

My thing with Kant is, I think he didn't appreciate his own logic.  It is much more a flexible system than he imagined.

Burhop

  • ****
  • 175
  • Editor and freelance Writer
    • View Profile
    • I Edit Stuff.
Re: My Yale 250 - Have at it
« Reply #47 on: December 31, 2005, 10:14:22 PM »
This is much clearer than your 250. Most of your explanations have been. The tone here is more pure and more forthright. Don't worry about name-dropping if it helps your cause--I find it's more intellectually honest to be open about whose ideas are being discussed. (It might be more pretentious to use a name as an adjective--dunno).

I just brought up sovereignty cuz that's what stops a lot of action--people not wanting to step on another government's toes. I suppose it's the same with the Iraq arguments--when is it okay to intervene on foreign soil? Is it really always so easy to make these determinations? How about when reps from the countries themselves lie to the UN (i.e. Rwanda)?

It's tricky--it can get very World Police. Unless you make a point of arguing otherwise.

I hope you use some of your language below in your 250. Good stuff.

best,

Dani
(what, I can celebrate new years & be on LSD too! C'est possible.)



Martha yes, a little  (the love/community angle). Paul Kahn, too. Sen = overrated. Geertz, for me, the most influential, although indirectly. Maybe Marshall Sahlins, too. James Ferguson, definitely. Didn't want to name drop, too much. See the reaction that a passing mention of Weber elicited?

Within borders? Maybe, although the borders are contested: Kurds, Rwanda-Burundi, Kosovo, Congo etc.. Not sure what moral (or practical) difference that makes? (Benedict Anderson, Eric hobsbawm...)

Apocalyptic? The situation is, but surely not the fact that I'm pointing it out? Willing to be less outraged (would be assuaged, in fact, and happy to pursue a doctoral degree in English lit, maybe) if I thought that the theory was on track and the practice would follow at some time in the future. Not at all convinced that the theory is anywhere near on the right track, though. And no, there is no progress that I can discern. The poor are poorer; the sick are sicker; women emancipated only in the sunny corners of the world. Slavery still with us, although we call it debt-bondage now. What has changed, really, for the poor? Not a whole bunch.

Part of the reason is that human rights rhetoric has crowded out political struggle. And of course, the economist-world bank types (the colonial administrators, loosely, of our day) go out and do their thing: "it's not politics, you see? It's development plans". They are not chastened, of course, that they have failed utterly and in every manner possible and in every place that they have been active in promoting "human development".. they just need to re-jig their development models a little bit, try micrcredit maybe, or property rights r export processing zones, or privatisation or ......

There needs to be a sense of shame about the last century. Cynicism is accepting that this is the way that it has to be, and I'm not there yet. I'm just a little pissed off.



redemption

Re: My Yale 250 - Have at it
« Reply #48 on: January 01, 2006, 09:54:43 AM »
What do you think a Kantian approach to the current state of affairs would be?   

My thing with Kant is, I think he didn't appreciate his own logic.  It is much more a flexible system than he imagined.

He would be surprised that utilitarianism is still going strong. Your 2nd post in this thread would have pained him, I think.....


magnumalv

Re: My Yale 250 - Have at it
« Reply #49 on: January 01, 2006, 09:59:12 AM »
redacted