| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
|
| | Truth, Beauty, and the Law
Martha Tharaud believes that "the truth will be revealed." Though she is speaking about the fundamental nature of the employment relationship, her words have a Keatsian ring; in talking about truth , she is talking about beauty. Her own deep appreciation of beauty is evident: downtown Manhattan speaks to her in artists' names, and her conversation is peppered with Dreiser and Dante.
|
|
<
< | |
| | Tharaud's final speech before meeting Cerriere reveals that an interest in art is crucial. Tharaud contends, "To know anything about beauty, you have to take the trouble to learn." Most lawyers don't, and "there are a lot of people hurt by it, really hurt." This provokes a sense of futility in her: "I'm not sure, either, what you can do about it, other than protect yourself, protect what you believe in, those whom you love." |
|
<
< | Tharaud's claim is startling: beauty matters to the law. Not only does the appreciation "of subtlety, of beauty" make you a more capable lawyer, but a lawyer lacking that capacity is dangerous. |
>
> | Tharaud's claim is startling: beauty matters to the law. Not only does the appreciation "of subtlety, of beauty" make you a more capable lawyer, but a lawyer lacking that capacity is dangerous. To respond to beauty you must be open to the world and care about more than putting "money in your pockets." But this also leaves you vulnerable. You have to "protect yourself." |
| | At the Fishhouses |
| | forever, flowing and drawn, and since
our knowledge is historical, flowing, and flown.
|
|
<
< | Through attentive observation of the physical world – its harmonies and disharmonies, its beauty and its stench– Bishop accesses a higher order. Tharaud calls it "beauty," Bishop calls it "knowledge," but they are talking about the same thing. Bishop reminded me that knowledge is "utterly free" and cannot be corrupted; the power of this realization made me cry. In coming to law school, I had accessed a language and a community of minds that could help me build freedom, no matter how manacled I felt at the time. Tharaud evinces a similar sense of liberation through knowledge/truth when she says "in due course, what can be proved and what cannot will be clear to us all." Like Tharaud, I believe it. |
>
> | Through attentive observation of the physical world--its harmonies and disharmonies, its beauty and its stench--Bishop accesses a higher order. Tharaud calls it "beauty," Bishop calls it "knowledge," but they are talking about the same thing. Bishop reminded me that knowledge is "utterly free" and cannot be corrupted; the power of this realization made me cry. In coming to law school, I had accessed a language and a community of minds that could help me build freedom, no matter how manacled I felt at the time. Tharaud evinces a similar sense of liberation through knowledge/truth when she says "in due course, what can be proved and what cannot will be clear to us all." Like Tharaud, I believe it. |
| | Tharaud might hear words echoed in the poem's only refrain: "Cold dark deep and absolutely clear." I hear other voices too: Lawyerland's epigraph from Rilke ("in the depths everything becomes law"), Eben's exhortation to "think deeper in time," even Felix Cohen and the importance of the unconscious. At the time, of course, I hadn't thought about any of these things, but I felt no less comforted. In acquiring knowledge, "derived from the rocky breasts," we create a primal and nourishing relationship between ourselves and world. This relationship is both happening and happened and we are all a part of it. Balm to the soul of the disaffected law student.
Cerriere's Answer |
|
<
< | Tharaud sits just across the table from Cerriere, yet they may as well be separated by an abyss. Tharaud sees truth and beauty in the employment relationship; Cerriere sees employment as a transaction that demands efficiency. Their differing views of employment mirror their differing views of the world. Tharaud sees beauty; Cerriere sees an arbitrary and violent world that is changing too rapidly to grasp. |
>
> | Tharaud sits just across the table from Cerriere, yet they may as well be separated by an abyss. Tharaud sees truth and beauty in the employment relationship; Cerriere sees employment as a transaction that demands efficiency. Their differing views of employment mirror their differing views of the world. Tharaud sees beauty; Cerriere sees an arbitrary and violent world that is changing too rapidly to grasp Cerriere might understand the futility that drives Tharaud to protect herself and the ones that she loves, but he finds himself on the other side of the table from her because he can't see much worth saving. |
| | Cerriere detests Tharaud's self righteousness, and finds it ridiculous to advocate for the working class when people are being tortured and executed arbitrarily everywhere else in the world. Ideas, he seems to say, are frippery at best and lethal at worst; hence his reliance on data and efficiency. There's a humanity to Cerriere, but it has lost its way. |
|
<
< | Tharaud and Cerriere seem irreconcilable, but I feel both their points of view. This class has taught me the value of holding two contradictory things together in your mind at once: this is how you come to think creatively as a lawyer, and to ask the questions that lead you to something that wasn't there before. |
>
> | Tharaud and Cerriere seem irreconcilable, but I feel both their points of view. The law can be about choosing sides and drawing lines in the sand, but it doesn't have to be. This class has taught me the value of holding two contradictory things together in your mind at once: this is how you come to think creatively as a lawyer, and to ask the questions that lead you to something that wasn't there before. |
| | This essay asks more questions than it answers. Why is the shared artistic project of Bishop, Joseph, and Tharaud of importance to the law? Can feeling deeply about art really make me a better lawyer, as I hope it can? For Tharaud, caring about art is linked to an openness to the world that resembles empathy. Why then her failure of empathy for Cerriere? How can I build a career without Tharaud's blind spots, which is to say, can I avoid Cerriere's fate without forgetting that like all lawyers, I suppose, he was a child once? |
| | (1) Sorry it took me so long to revise this piece. I found this paper extremely difficult to revise because of its personal nature.
(2) The paper was excellent and thought-provoking, but at times I felt it lacked clarity. I focused my revisions on reorganizing and editing to improve clarity.
(3) I left large portions, especially in the middle section, unaltered. Every time I attempted to change these parts, I felt that the original meaning was destroyed. |
|
>
> | Thank you Conrad! Your edits made for a more streamlined essay. Thanks for pushing things towards clarity. |