Mark Washofsk
107. The glance was taken by Richard Rorty ,“The Banality of Pragmatism and the Poetry of Justice,” in Brint and Weaver(note 107, above), 89-97. He notes that pragmatism is the governing approach even of those theorists who denounce“pragmatism.” On the“antifoundational” thrust of much of twentieth-century legal theory, see Minda(note 4, above), especially for the bibliography he provides
108. For a reconsideration of what the Sophists were really saying, see Anthony T. Kronman , “Rhetoric, ” University of Cincinnati Law Review 67(1999). 677-709. See as well the description of the Sophistic controversy in Brian Vickers. In I defense of Rhetoric (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1989). For a response to Socrates ’ devastating attack upon rhetoric, see James Boyd White , Heracles’ Bow: Essays on the Rhetoric and Poetics of Law(Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985), 215-237
109. Richard J. Bernstein (note 99, above). 8. Bernstein ’s monograph is a comprehensive description of the struggle between the search for foundations and methods(hence the attribution to Descartes ) and the attempt to identify new approaches that ground knowledge in something less than objective certainty but something more than pure subjectivism.
112. John S. Nelson, Allan Megill, and Donald N McCloskey , The Rhetoric of the Human Sciences(Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. 1987), 6.
113. See Richard Rorty , Philosophy and The Mirror of Nature (Princeton : Princeton University Press , 1979), 320:“Normal discourse is that which is conducted within an agreedupon set of conventions about what counts as a relevant contribution, what counts as answering a question, what counts as having a good argument for that answer or a good criticism of it. Abnormal discourse is what happens when someone joins in the discourse who is ignorant of these conventions or who sets them aside.”
114. The proper citation here is Thomas Kuhn . The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Second Edition Enlarged(Chicago: University of Chicago Press , 1970). Fundamental to Kuhn ’s system is his notion of scientific paradigms:“universally recognized scientific achievements that for a timeprovide model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners(viii, emphasis added). See also Richard Rorty ,“Science as Solidarity,” in Nelson, Megill, and McCloskey (note 112, above), 38-52.
115. Thomas C. Grey,“Holmes and Legal Pragmatism,” Stanford Law Review 41(1989), at 798. Among these theorists on the“left” are Stanley Fish (note 98, an argument he repeats throughout the book) and Joseph William Singer,“The Player and the Cards: Nihilism and Legal Theory,” Yale Law Journal 94(1984), 1-70. The“right wing”(as these things are