In a message dated 05/19/2000 11:40:01 EST, slothrop@xxxxxxxx writes:
<< His book-length criticism of reason can be found in "The Enchantment of
Reason," published in 1998, and available at amazon and bn.com. For more
detailed analysis of the "performative contradiction" issue, you might want
to look through some old law reviews of his. He answers the charge that a
normative criticism of normative legal thought is self-contradictory. See
"Normativity and the Politics of Form" in the University of Pennsylvania Law
Review, some time in 1991. This article is also reproduced in a book Schlag
co-wrote with some other people, known as "Against the Law," also available
online. You would also be interested in "Normative and Nowhere to Go," in a
1990 issue of the Stanford Law Review. >>
Most people (especially debaters) seem to misinterpret Schlag. From what I've
read, Schlag isn't against people saying anything that is normative
(prescriptive discourse). His real crusade is against professors of law who
normatively prescribe court decisions. When I decide that I shouldn't tell
the courts or legislatures what to do, I'm not contradicting myself at all.
I'm simply making a decision in my own life (something that I can really
affect).
Note: I'm not necessarily endorsing Schlag. I'm not really sure what I think
about him yet.
<<A paradox occurs because of self-referentiality. We must express ourselves
in a certain language, and any type of questioning of the status quo way of
arranging language MUST contradict itself.>>
What's the warrant for this claim? Why does discourse that challenges the
status quo have to contradict itself?
-Aaron J. Lyttle
"To write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric."
-Adorno
<< His book-length criticism of reason can be found in "The Enchantment of
Reason," published in 1998, and available at amazon and bn.com. For more
detailed analysis of the "performative contradiction" issue, you might want
to look through some old law reviews of his. He answers the charge that a
normative criticism of normative legal thought is self-contradictory. See
"Normativity and the Politics of Form" in the University of Pennsylvania Law
Review, some time in 1991. This article is also reproduced in a book Schlag
co-wrote with some other people, known as "Against the Law," also available
online. You would also be interested in "Normative and Nowhere to Go," in a
1990 issue of the Stanford Law Review. >>
Most people (especially debaters) seem to misinterpret Schlag. From what I've
read, Schlag isn't against people saying anything that is normative
(prescriptive discourse). His real crusade is against professors of law who
normatively prescribe court decisions. When I decide that I shouldn't tell
the courts or legislatures what to do, I'm not contradicting myself at all.
I'm simply making a decision in my own life (something that I can really
affect).
Note: I'm not necessarily endorsing Schlag. I'm not really sure what I think
about him yet.
<<A paradox occurs because of self-referentiality. We must express ourselves
in a certain language, and any type of questioning of the status quo way of
arranging language MUST contradict itself.>>
What's the warrant for this claim? Why does discourse that challenges the
status quo have to contradict itself?
-Aaron J. Lyttle
"To write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric."
-Adorno