/lit/ - Literature

>>23107652
Hegel’s Elements of the Philosophy of Right with Marx’s Contribution to a Critique.

>>23107667
How are these relevant?

>>23107652
Modern jurisprudence is actually very simple and can be learned in seconds:
If you're white, you did it; if you're not white, you didn't do it, but if hypothetically you did do it, you had good reasons for doing it.

>>23107716
Serious replies please.

>>23107706
Why do you think?

>>23107723
Then I'd suggest going to Oxford on your armchair, as it were. Digging around the Oxford website should let you find the required and recommended texts for their law curriculum. I don't know how open-access Oxford is, but if it's anything like some Ivy League universities in the States, you'll even be able to find lecture slides and whatnot.

>>23107743
I’m not sure. I was asking why you recommended them so I can get a better idea as I assumed you read them. Sorry if it came across rude.

>>23107828
No worries. Yes, I’ve read them. Their combination is essentially everything one needs to know about the philosophy of law because it covers legal ethics, political philosophy, and history, being what OP requested.

>>23107667
kek, embarrassing. are you a early 20s zoomer who wishes they were studying polisci at a second tier public european university?

>>23107652
Just read these two links and buy a book on the history of common law and the magna carta if you still want more.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/common-law

https://www.milnerslaw.co.uk/a-very-brief-history-of-the-legal-system-in-england-and-wales

>>23107848
What a stupid and farfetched assumption. No, I’m giving OP the best modern recommendations for learning philosophy of law. Have you tried therapy? Genuine question.

>>23107866
>best modern recommendations for learning philosophy of law
>Marx and Hegel
real euro hours

>>23107652
Law involves a very different kind of reading, we had to be taught how to read jurisprudence properly in the beginning of law school, you'd need to be taught that. After that you can read the leading legal textbooks and cases

>>23107889
>ummmm IRAC’ing is the proper reading of jurisprudence
Retard

>>23107879
Law is law, and their work is substantially more attuned to the development of the Western legal tradition than any Supreme Court fetishist or Ivy League polysci elitist from the past couple centuries.

>>23107723
he is serious, nigger.

I also regret not going to a good school and studying law, a lot.


But in truth, there’s law and then there’s philosophy of law. Philosophy of law is basically just political theory. So if that’s what interests you, just read Hobbes, Rousseau, Schmitt, etc.

>>23107652
You might want to look at sections from the Digest of Justinian and the Code Napoleon.

bump, am law student.

>>23108419
read your textbooks and ask your professors (that you pay tuition for) for a recommendation. are you stupid?

>>23108419
share with us your course reading list fren

>>23108421
Our professors are just indoctrinating us about minorities (not their fault), EU (faultless), climate change (real and dangerous), businesses(evil). There is no depth at all.

>>23108438
What’s wrong with those?

>>23108434
law students just read cases, usually out of a casebook

>>23108452
we have some theoretical textbooks and law bundles, but most reading is indeed from casebooks which are sorted by subject.

>>23108458
Such as?

>the retarded 2L makes xis appearance needing attention thinking he is even remotely qualified to talk about jurisprudence simply because he matriculated into a TTT law school
Sad

>>23108462
they are in Dutch, I doubt you will be interested

>>23108469
>posting on here
>and not xo
sad.
>Verification not required.

>>23108470
Can't speak for the rest but I am interested

>>23108438
read edmund burke and this book for a good counterpoint to your professors, then.

>>23108489
What burke would you recommend?

>>23108495
I'd start out with this alongside reading Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France.

>>23108483
not him but I'm in law school and the names of a bunch of cases will not make much sense to you without context. if you say what type of law you're interested in though, then I might be able to help

>>23108639
what type of options do you have

These replies show just how low /lit/ has fallen. In better days we’d have anons posting their actual syllabi into threads like this

>>23108848
It wouldnt make sense to anyone. I can list out childs v desormeaux and donoghue v stevenson and make op read these with no context whatsoever but it doesnt help him at all. Even in our casebooks we read excerpts

>>23108775
There are literally laws for everything in society

Bump

>>23108848
another lawfag here, i dont mind posting my syllabus but im a currycel at a mid uni so idk if people will be interested. This is my current semester syllabus for Jurisprudence but my teacher uses alot of other texts apart from the prescribed ones like Hegel and Fuller to teach though.