情人節的前一天晚上，我看電視看到半夜四點。
首先，前一個晚上看的福爾摩斯第二季，大概是太令人震撼了，所以突然變得睡不著，因而就只好跟半夜的重播電影一起撐著。
第一部是刺激1995。其實我一開始想到這部片，就有很複雜的感覺。首先，我一直是喜歡這部片的，而這部片總是讓我想到當兵的時候的感覺與一些想法。但這次重看，突然發覺這部片好像也有一個部分是在談愛情的：囚犯們其實愛著也恨著監獄，而主角其實也愛著並恨著他死去的太太，但最後，故事以和解收場。友誼救贖了愛情。從這個觀點，真的很像是個迂迴的愛情故事。
緊接著，又看了香草天空，這也是我的愛片。其實我並不確定為什麼我喜歡這部片，有幾個角色演得很奇怪，但幾個主角年輕時真的很精采，用的車、配樂或運鏡都一樣精采。這是一個好玩的電影，最少幾個細節都不錯。
xxxxxxxx
我這個寒假都在努力工作，頭髮白了不少，但產量不多。大體上，都是存貨整頓後出大出清的狀態。但整頓出清不代表不累，這個部分，有點像是對大家負責，所以就該得這樣。
其實我並不特別喜歡教書，我比較喜歡回答自己喜歡的問題。教學或研究都是附隨這件事而生的。但並不是每個人都知道這件事，而這樣也太內向閉鎖了，有時，我不禁這樣想。但或許可以體諒的是，寫論文其實很辛苦，我可以感覺自己在壓榨自己僅有的腦力，一點一點的。
2012年2月14日
2012年2月1日
SF part two: " The law is surely a practice but it is also a subject"
這篇文章，回答了之前一位律師要求我們改變的問題，同時也回答了一位（或一些）同學對於我「教學」的期待。
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/teaching-law/
"...But the mere rehearsing of those arguments, strategies and rules will be an empty gesture if underlying the rehearsal is not some strong intuition of the general project that calls them forth. In his book “Speech Acts,” the philosopher John Searle makes a distinction between brute and institutional facts. Were you to describe a football game in purely brute physicalist terms — a person tries to move forward and is stopped by several other persons; two men in striped shirts run out with a chain suspended between two sticks that are placed in the ground — the description, Searle observes, would tell you nothing about what is really going on."
"That understanding is what law schools offer (among other things). Law schools ask and answer the question, “What’s the game here?”; the ins and outs of the game you learn later, as in any profession. The complaint reported by David Segal in his Times article is that law firms must teach their new hires tricks of the trade they never learned in their contracts, torts and (God forbid) jurisprudence classes. But learning the tricks would not amount to much and might well be impossible for someone who did not know — in a deep sense of know — what the trade is and why it is important to practice it."
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/teaching-law/
"...But the mere rehearsing of those arguments, strategies and rules will be an empty gesture if underlying the rehearsal is not some strong intuition of the general project that calls them forth. In his book “Speech Acts,” the philosopher John Searle makes a distinction between brute and institutional facts. Were you to describe a football game in purely brute physicalist terms — a person tries to move forward and is stopped by several other persons; two men in striped shirts run out with a chain suspended between two sticks that are placed in the ground — the description, Searle observes, would tell you nothing about what is really going on."
"That understanding is what law schools offer (among other things). Law schools ask and answer the question, “What’s the game here?”; the ins and outs of the game you learn later, as in any profession. The complaint reported by David Segal in his Times article is that law firms must teach their new hires tricks of the trade they never learned in their contracts, torts and (God forbid) jurisprudence classes. But learning the tricks would not amount to much and might well be impossible for someone who did not know — in a deep sense of know — what the trade is and why it is important to practice it."
SF part one
An article about the religion clause, ministerial exception, the free exercise clause (the right of a religion to be governed by its own tenets would be curtailed) and the establishment clause (the state would in effect have taken over the management of the church by dictating its hiring practices), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/is-religion-above-the-law/
I like this part in particular
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/is-religion-above-the-law/
I like this part in particular
"This clear-cut example — to which both sides in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC refer frequently — may be the only one (and it is only clear-cut because it has behind it 2,000 years of history). For the question quickly becomes one of boundaries — how far does the ministerial exception extend? To whom does it apply? Not only are there no answers to such questions, it is not obvious who is empowered to ask them."
In the end, it will be like:
"But that is simply to relocate the problem in a phrase that itself demands explication".
Again, we are back to the starting point.
Again, we are back to the starting point.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)