As inconclusive as ever
The conference held to mark the end of my sixteen years as Oxford’s Professor of Jurisprudence was a great honour as well as a chastening experience. Chastening, because it made me see that over those years I had tackled far too many topics, most of them, therefore, in too little depth. An honour,...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Oxford University Press
2019
|
| Summary: | The conference held to mark the end of my sixteen years as Oxford’s Professor of Jurisprudence was a great honour as well as a chastening experience. Chastening, because it made me see that over those years I had tackled far too many topics, most of them, therefore, in too little depth. An honour, because so many distinguished and accomplished colleagues assembled for this intellectual autopsy. They generously sought out arguments and positions of mine that could at least be taken seriously. In some cases, as this issue of the Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies attests, they paid me the highest academic compliment: comprehensive rejection! In this reply I will not be able to give all the criticisms the attention they deserve. I have one article in which to react to fifteen. So I have selected just a few points on which to offer my further brief reflections, alas mostly still as inconclusive as ever. |
|---|