fluteyourtoot2001 said:
Hmm, I understand what your saying and I do kind of understand why Macquarie teaches juris and 104 as the two first year units. I mean, it probably is better to have an understanding of the theoretical nature of law before they can begin learning the substantive aspects of it. (That and the unit is actually quite good at weeding out the people who actually want to do law from the people who 'thought' they might want to do it and why not give it a shot if you know what I mean).
That being said, juris is just a boring, boring subject. I mean, it's extremely hard having the kind of lively discussion you would have about say child pornography (like this week in crim) about Mill's harm principle or Bentham's bloody principles.
I don't really know what kind of person would be interested by juris. For me and a lot of others it was purely a mandatory unit and that's the reason we did it. A bad reason for a unit to be in existence perhaps?
Anyway, my last post wasn't meant to be a critique of the unit or me forcing my opinions of the unit on you. I was just trying to give you some advice to help you pass it (advice you can freely take or ignore as you wish). I was just trying to make the point that even if you don't like juris just continue and find some way to pass as I've found that each semester the law units seem to get more interesting.
Meh, I'm just saying that it's a shame that the unit is almost destroyed, and that they don't make full use of their lecture time.
I think people who would be interested in LAW114 would be people who are interested in PHIL units, particularly the ethics and morality units (132, for example). I'm enjoying the 114 content, as I did the PHIL132 content. Personally, I think the two units really overlap a great deal...
I wasn't saying your advice was valid or invalid, and I chose not to take it. I would probably advocate going to all the lectures, rather than not going. Then again, that's because I live so close, and ilectures aren't a huge advantage over irllectures.
I don't see how you can't have lively discussions about philosophy, I mean ideological beliefs are the centre of philosophical debate. Really, the only let down in tutes is when people bring in really low-level stuff, or just answer with a really vague, unresponsive answers.
Furthermore, ideological beliefs are the easiest thing to mimic in argument form, for example, I could argue that jurisprudence isn't important (a view differing to yours). I doubt you could argue that contacts isn't important. Jurisprudence is supposed to be a second-order enquiry and, I think, any subject that has self-reflexivity at its heart is a good start!
That being said, I still stand by the fact that Archana is, objectively, a poor lecturer.
Edit: I just found transcripts of her lectures. I think I'll just read them.
