Is that necessarily so? The problem of circular definitions arises when
attempts are made to create gradations, exceptions, and penumbras. The
problem surely doesn't exist when the definitions have absolute
distinctions.
It is more a cultural than logical problem. We live in a post-modern
world (whatever "post modern" means, to give an example of a silly term)
which is plagued with relativism of all sorts. So the red light
sometimes is considered green and the green light sometimes is
considered red. Of course it gets confusing.
There is a place for gradations, exceptions and penumbras ("right turn
on red" and "stop at green for ambulance on cross street" come to mind).
The problem is when the gradation, exception, or penumbra makes no sense
but is offered as having a cogent, logical, and justifiable basis. It
is, perhaps, the affliction that arises when the hard physical sciences
meet the soft social sciences. The irony is that eventually (and we're
already on the path), what is considered to be a soft science with
spongy analysis will be revealed as yet another hard science with
analysis that rests on the core language of the universe, i.e.,
mathematics.
And we know how much lawyers enjoy math, arithmetic, tax computations,
etc..... <G>
Jim Maule
Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law
Villanova PA 19085
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://vls.law.vill.edu/prof/maule
President, TaxJEM Inc (computer assisted tax law instruction)
(www.taxjem.com)
Publisher, JEMBook Publishing Co. (www.jembook.com)
Owner/Developer, TaxCruncherPro (www.taxcruncherpro.com)
Maule Family Archivist & Genealogist (www.maulefamily.com)
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/24/03 10:16AM >>>
When you get into the business of defining definitions, and then
the definitions that define those definitions, and so forth
down the line, you enter the world called an 'infinite
regress' where you risk coming out on the other side very close to
where you started, or nowhere at all.; It's why legal argument, pushed
too far at least, has been called an exercise in circular reasoning.
This way also lies madness.
The reason we have courts, or the Court, is to smite this Gordian
knot with a judgment that says, "This far and no farther."
After all, it's human beings we're dealing with...
This is not meant to answer Prof. Lipkin's question, but simply to
react to it; I'd be interested in other reactions to his query as well.
Robert Sheridan
