doctrinalism

Forwarded Conversation
Subject: workshop
————————

From: Charles Nesson
To: John Coates
Date: Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 3:10 PM

John, sorry i had to leave your workshop early today. thank you for your paper. the issue you raise goes to the heart of what and how we teach. i feel that parsing rules and reasons behind in order to interpret to serve their purpose is the most basic rhetorical skill we teach.
-charlie

——–
From: John Coates
To: Charles Nesson
Date: Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 3:13 PM

Thanks — agreed. The paper is proving to be a bit of Rorschach test for readers — not surprisingly, what different people think “doctrine” is and how it functions strongly affects their view of what doctrinal scholarship is, but more surprisingly, people have very different views on what doctrine is.

Here’s einer’s first post: http://volokh.com/posts/1179757913.shtml

Here’s tribe’s reply: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/05/larry…

Here’s balkin’s reply: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/05/mr-do…

Forwarded Conversation
Subject: workshop
————————

From: Charles Nesson
To: John Coates
Date: Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 3:10 PM

John, sorry i had to leave your workshop early today. thank you for your paper. the issue you raise goes to the heart of what and how we teach. i feel that parsing rules and reasons behind in order to interpret to serve their purpose is the most basic rhetorical skill we teach.
-charlie

——–
From: John Coates
To: Charles Nesson
Date: Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 3:13 PM

Thanks — agreed. The paper is proving to be a bit of Rorschach test for readers — not surprisingly, what different people think “doctrine” is and how it functions strongly affects their view of what doctrinal scholarship is, but more surprisingly, people have very different views on what doctrine is.

Here’s einer’s first post: http://volokh.com/posts/1179757913.shtml

Here’s tribe’s reply: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/05/larry…

Here’s balkin’s reply: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/05/mr-do…

Forwarded Conversation
Subject: workshop
————————

From: Charles Nesson
To: John Coates
Date: Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 3:10 PM

John, sorry i had to leave your workshop early today. thank you for your paper. the issue you raise goes to the heart of what and how we teach. i feel that parsing rules and reasons behind in order to interpret to serve their purpose is the most basic rhetorical skill we teach.
-charlie

——–
From: John Coates
To: Charles Nesson
Date: Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 3:13 PM

Thanks — agreed. The paper is proving to be a bit of Rorschach test for readers — not surprisingly, what different people think “doctrine” is and how it functions strongly affects their view of what doctrinal scholarship is, but more surprisingly, people have very different views on what doctrine is.

Here’s einer’s first post: http://volokh.com/posts/1179757913.shtml

Here’s tribe’s reply: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/05/larry…

Here’s balkin’s reply: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/05/mr-do…

einer says: Now by doctrinalism I do not mean any scholarship that considers doctrine or takes it seriously. I rather mean the sort of scholarship that simply describes doctrine or that assesses doctrine based solely on formalistic grounds having to do with the logic of it internal structure. It would not, in my book, be doctrinalism to analyze the functional theories that could explain some doctrine or lead to reform of it, or to measure the consequences of doctrine. Heck, that is what I do, and I am not about to declare myself obsolete.

balkin beautiful in response.

0 Responses to “doctrinalism”


Comments are currently closed.