G'day /lit/, ausfag law student here.
I'm a big fan of your reading guides and I was wondering if anyone here has studied or read jurisprudence before?
Whats a good starting point if you want to learn more about law, legal philosophy and legal history?
Obviously "lerl start with the Greeks" and then go on to Cicero, but what else?
rawls has the face of a intellectual
>>8053703
D'entreves - Natural Law
Hart - Fuller Debate
Hart - The Concept of the Law
Kelsen - A Pure Theory of Law
Oliver Wendell Holmes jr. - The Path of The Law
The Philosophy of Human Rights - Patrick Hayden (a collection of texts on human rights)
>>8053703
>ausfag law student here.
lmao where cunt
I guess it depends on how complete you want to be. Here's what I have done so far, in this order:
Hobbes, Locke, and Confusion's Masterpiece by Ross Harrison
The title only mentions Hobbes and Locke but actually this book gives you the full ideas of Grotius, Pufendorf, and others of that time and contrasts where they all differ. It will also give you an excellent overview of the world they lived in, from King James to the struggle with King Charles. His treatment of Hobbes and Locke are fantastic and cover other political and philosophic works by them, like De Cive and the essay.
Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, chapters 13 to 30.
Trust me when I say to start with 13. This is the recommendation at many universities and it's for good reason. The previous chapters are mostly defining terms and have very little application to the rest of the political philosopher, and are drier than the rest of the book. I would guess most people who attempt to read Leviathan and give up are people who tried to read the whole thing from page 1. If you want to read more about his definitions of "virtue" etc, read the previous chapters, but I would still suggest reading 13 to 30 and then deciding if you care to read the rest. Those chapters are required reading, though.
Two Treatses of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration by John Locke
Montesquieu: Selected Political Writings, Hackett
As you know, Montesquieu famously first described the separations of powers and the founding fathers of the US were avid fans of his. The Spirit of The Laws is a massive 800+ page mammoth and is mostly filled with bullshit. This edition offers a fantastic abridged version that is only a couple hundred pages and covers the important ideas.
On the Origins of Inequality and The Social Contract by Rousseau
These are fantastic and will probably be the first essays along the line of political thought that you will agree with parts of in a modern sense. I absolutely loved Rousseau.
Rights of Man, Common Sense and Other Political Writings by Thomas Paine
The Federalist Papers by Madison, Hamilton, etc
And now finally, where it will get interesting for you in terms of law, and where I am currently at,
The Principles of Morals and Legislation by Bentham.
This is where the founding fathers got their ideas about gun laws and many other basic US laws that were originally created.
I have a further reading plan but my aim is political economics so it may be a bit different than what you're interested in, in a legal sense. It may be better for you to read more contemporary authors if you're just interested in receiving immediately the modern ideas of law.
>>8053807
I'm reading general philosophy in tandem with this stuff. I just finished Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, I'm reading Leibniz now and then I will move on to Hume. I would like to eventually understand enough of Hegel to fully "get" Das Kapital, and I know before I can read Hegel I must read Kant.
"It is impossible completely
to understand Marx’s Capital, and es-
pecially its first chapter, without having
thoroughly studied and understood the
whole of Hegel’s Logic. Consequently,
half a century later none of the Marxists
understood Marx! " - Vladimir Lenin
Politically I lean towards Anarchy in the spirit of the Spanish Revolution/Paris Commune, so the rest of my reading list is highly biased towards that: Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin, etc
Does anyone have any contemporary suggestions?
>>8053703
The big three are:
H. L. A. Hart - The Concept of Law
Ronald Dworkin - Taking Rights Seriously
Joseph Raz - The Morality of Freedom
>>8053845
Politically I'm on the same page as you, but I highly recommend skipping Hegel. Kant, Schopenhauer and J.S. Mill are useful, but Hegel is incoherent rubbish. Marx was really a very concrete thinker -- difficult, but not due to philosophical prerequisites. Then go on to Proudhon et. al. The anarchists are all fairly clear writers.
Why not just study law instead of reading some long dead guys magical opinion of it?
Philosophy is fucking stupid.
>>8054274
That's what you read in Law school - you epic retard.
>10 posts
>No Carl Schmitt
>>8054850
>epic retard
>>8053703
Are you looking specifically for Priestley 11 type stuff or law in general?
>>8053703
Cicero was an orator and advocate (patronus), he wasn't a lawyer (iurisconsultus). He had to consult with lawyers to help with the technical parts of his speeches.
As for the Greeks, I don't know how much of Greek law survives except as incidentally mentioned by their historians, poets, philosophers, + inscriptions, which have been collated and analyzed by Hellenists of course but it's not like there's a Greek A.V. Dicey.
If you really want to "start from the beginning", you should start with the Institutiones of Gaius, which is from the 2nd century.
