(no subject)
Went to observe my lawyer's closing arguments in a police brutality case arising from a 2006 incident. The argument was so compelling and thought rich while at the same time flowing, conversational. It's an art form to hold a jury's attention, and to impart your facts, and to allow the room for the conclusions to happen. An effective communicator is one who allows the jury's ideas to strike them as the only natural expression of justice in a given case. The nuanced yet matter-of-fact content of an experienced and successful attorney's closing argument goes to show how much our own ideas are delivered to us prepackaged by our environment. Without getting too philosophical, there is only one way the events occurred on that day. Why then is there a lawsuit? Because the officer perceived a dangerous or escalating situation, and our victim was pressured by an unbounded, power-hungry authoritarian. If events were that fragile on that day, that malleable to our own prejudices and inconsistencies, then how much more so four years later. The attorney raised a good point which is that a defense witness may have testified that he checked the looseness of the handcuffs both on the top and bottom of her wrist, but two years had gone by before he became aware of a lawsuit, and two years after that when he was called to testify. Is his recollection even in the best case reliable?
My roommate the philosophy major who doesn't walk his dog or wash dishes brought up some Cartesian belief in the absolute insufficiency of communication to convey what is our absolute individual reality. My rebuttal is that while communication is necessarily limited by the five vowel sounds and some fricatives, so too is our original perception limited by the five senses. Therefore your original, individual, undefeatable reality is faulty to begin with, moreso than a communication could impact or complete. Our ideas are malleable, and our perceptions deceive us. Mastering communication and mastering one's mind go hand in hand, and understanding what makes for a good closing argument will cause one to understand what makes you you.
I'm officially interested in law school.
My roommate the philosophy major who doesn't walk his dog or wash dishes brought up some Cartesian belief in the absolute insufficiency of communication to convey what is our absolute individual reality. My rebuttal is that while communication is necessarily limited by the five vowel sounds and some fricatives, so too is our original perception limited by the five senses. Therefore your original, individual, undefeatable reality is faulty to begin with, moreso than a communication could impact or complete. Our ideas are malleable, and our perceptions deceive us. Mastering communication and mastering one's mind go hand in hand, and understanding what makes for a good closing argument will cause one to understand what makes you you.
I'm officially interested in law school.