On I Drink, Therefore I Am

“Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.” ― Frank Zappa Dear Auntie SAM: In your post „On … For Carmen“ you request help. I think you need to be more specific about what you are looking for. We’re Swiss, be blunt. The study of law is the study of how things went wrong. […]

My friends are all philosophers ...

“Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.”
― Frank Zappa

Dear Auntie SAM: In your post „On … For Carmen“ you request help. I think you need to be more specific about what you are looking for. We’re Swiss, be blunt.

The study of law is the study of how things went wrong. Most US law schools follow the method developed by the Dean of Harvard Law School, which is best described as: throw a piano out an upper story window, examine the wreckage, then play.

As such, a US law student reads hundreds of pages each night detailing common & fiendish ways in which lovers, friends, family, & business associates betray & swindle for profit (at least until the lawyers get involved).

They say economics is a dismal science. But, to me, studying economics was just another way to approach philosophy.

Philosophy & Economics, by my way of thinking, are different examinations about how people make choices primarily based on value judgments. Both are a forward-looking process in which, upon reflection, people are empowered to act.

Before I went to law school, I thought, it too, was just another approach to philosophy. My first love.

But no. Law. Law’s a wrecked piano.

Lawyers work with or from debris, disaster, dystopia – and then either try to mitigate casualties & loss or remedy (restore or compensate) after damage.

And, far from empowering, law’s a study in risk-aversion that encourages & supports the status quo: the people in power who pay the lawyers to stay in power.

As the elemental standard for law is whatever a „Reasonable Person“ would do, when things take unexpected turns (as they often do in life), people tend to feel ashamed or guilty for not having been „reasonable“ enough.

Law – & this type of thinking – is that nasty relative you dread seeing at Easter. The one who tries to make it seem as if you should have – as if you could have – prevented all disasters, if only you were a better person.

The thing I love to hate about this theory is that, aside from drunken moments of freedom, everybody always behaves reasonably.

Everybody.

When I worked in group homes & institutions, I was surrounded by people who appeared to be doing very unreasonable things all the time.

One person banged his head against the wall. Another had a repetitive audio tic. Still, a third hit her face with her palm.

The staff’s first response was often to instruct the person to stop the behavior. Failing that, the next step was either to punish, medicate, or ignore the behaviors. 

My approach was to consider each behavior as a puzzle; a game to solve – a game to win.

The headbanger? Flicking off a buzzing lightbulb calmed him.

The tic? Allergy medication & a handkerchief helped.

The facehitter? Tooth ache.

All very reasonable behaviors expressed from people without voices.

And, granted, law does allow for the condition that we find people where they are. 

But, in real life, most of us forget that part. And, when we do, the „Reasonable Person“ test becomes absurd: a burlesque of reason.

Just another day in Wonderland.

But everything has its merits.

So, dear Swiss Reader, you insist I be blunt. Which means you fail to find me where I am: I’m an American. I speak the language of diplomacy, & I’m trained in legalese & the arts. Directness isn’t in my blood. But never let it be said that your Auntie isn’t up to learning new tricks.

The deal is this:

I’ll show you the wrecked piano. We’ll examine its parts.

Because I know you really want to, wag a finger every now & again. Utter „tsk, tsk. I would never … „.

But then your side of the deal is to recognize that slipping into a risk-adverse legal (Swiss) mindset is just a self-protecting fear impulse; a distancing mechanism that disempowers yourself.

Which is such a shame, given you’re the only one with real power here.

So I challenge you: rather than become that relative we despise at Easter, let’s instead become philosophers. Let’s believe that every game has a solution. Every unreasonable act a reason. And that choices can be – are being – made, every day, based on value judgments. 

Let’s think about why people bang their heads against the wall here. And let’s find that switch & replace it. 

And now we’re already back to vague me. Failing to find you where you are. 

There’s quite a chasm between us, isn’t there? 

Naahhh … I’m just messing with ya 😉 Here’s what I want:

Nächster Artikel