[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 110 KB, 640x478, 1334235134464.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2694747 No.2694747 [Reply] [Original]

I'm starting a degree in Law next academic year, /lit/. Recommend me some shit to read.

I don't give a fuck what it is and I don't give a fuck what you think of me studying Law, I just want some shit to read.

>> No.2694750
File: 31 KB, 355x436, 22345274.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2694750

Start at the beginning!

>> No.2694754
File: 160 KB, 350x650, hammurabi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2694754

>>2694750

I think you mean this.

>> No.2694759

>>2694754
It's actually pretty interesting in that it mostly deals with civil law. There's actually an earlier one from the Ur-III period I think. Most information points to Hammurabi's "code" (and similar ones) really just being a public display of a common body of Mesopotamian civil law.

>> No.2694765

If international law interests you at all, you may want to read some Martti Koskenniemi.

Also read Carl Schmitt regardless.

>> No.2694766

>>2694754
I sort of lolered.

>> No.2694814

Is Hobbes a good place to start too?

>> No.2694901

Leviathan, yo

>> No.2694919

John Grisham, lots and lots of John Grisham.

>> No.2695013

Schmitt and Hobbes are both excellent suggestions, I second them.

>> No.2695028
File: 12 KB, 300x300, 41s+zo75QXL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU02_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2695028

What are lit's opinions on this? Read a biography on him earlier in the year and i'm very interested in this.

I was wondering if any lawfags would recommend?

>> No.2695034

If you're looking to get into legal philosophy, then start with Dworkin, Hart and Rawls.

>> No.2695036

>>2695013

Anything specific by either of those chaps?

>> No.2695041

>>2695034
Dworkin and Hart are great. Dworkin is also quite literary in his essays, so he makes for a nice read.

>> No.2695045

>>2695034

anything specific?

>> No.2695060

>>2695045
I'm not the guy who originally suggested those, but just do a google scholar search of the authors and look up their most-cited works. If it's a book, search for book reviews. You're a student, so you should have access to jstor or a law review journal for such a purpose.

>> No.2695073

Hegel - Elements of the Philosophy of Right

>> No.2695407

>>2695013
Go for Schmitt´s Concept of the Political. As for Hobbes, Leviathan is the place to go. Hegel is not for beginners, not to speak of his irrelevance for contemporary legal thought.

Also, fuck Rawls.

>> No.2697960

Kafka

>> No.2697972

>>2697960
There has to be one of you in every thread. EVERY THREAD.

>Actually read some Kafka, then come back and we'll talk.
>Yes, we all know you haven't read any of his work

>> No.2697979

>>2694747
>I'm starting a degree in Law next academic year
Why are you bothering to say this?
Idk, one of my favorites is "The Man Who Was Thursday"
Here's the beginning:
http://www.bartleby.com/158/1.html

>> No.2697998

>>2694747
good god i thought that was my sister from the thumb.

Imagine my surprise when the tattoos were different.

>> No.2698007

>>2695041
I hate Hart...ALthough he was undoubtedly brilliant, he pretty much turned the discipline of jurisprudence/legal theory into 'Hart Studies/Fanboying'


OP, read some fucking Grotius and Pufendorf.

>> No.2698025

>Haha, fucktards, I'm studying Law next year.
>Don't comment on my studying Law next year, asshole sniffers, I just want to talk about literature.

>> No.2698065

Habermas: Between Facts and Norms (Faktizität und Geltung).

>discourse theory of law.

>> No.2698140

Locke, 2nd Treatise on Government

>> No.2698152

>No mention of Kelsen

Read Kelsen.
Pure theory of Law would be a nice place to start

>> No.2698488

>>2698065
>discourse theory of law
lolno.jpg

>> No.2698491

>>2698488

why

>> No.2698571

>>2698491
Because "ideal discourse conditions", or however it´s called in English, are a particularly utopian fiction. Thus the core of the theory is worthless and what you are left with is a watered-down Kantiansim.

>> No.2698598

>>2698571

I used to think that, but it's not as utopian as it sounds. If you read how Habermas comes to his conclusion about the concept, you see that his analysis is not idealistic. The concept is rooted in an analysis of the actual way in which people interact today.

It's intirely possible to produce these circumstances.

>> No.2698606

>>2698598
As far as I remember, those conditions include things such as an unlimited amount of time and equal right for everyone to express himself, regardless of the obstacles their education or social status may pose. It is essentially an abstraction that cannot be actualized in reality.