Jurisprudence - Legal Fluff

I've always preferred American academics to British academics, especially in terms of literature, the former being audience orientated while the latter being generally self-indulgent. One favours the dissemination of information accessibly, while the other prefers to enlighten by confusion.

That's confusion, not confucian.

The Aussies on the other hand I don't generally have thoughts on or about, apart from Kangaroo BBQ-ing and Summery Christmases. But who would have guessed that a combination of Aussie and good ol' Brit academic backgrounds would result in this:

Chapter 1: Asking the Law Question (What is it?)
by Margaret Davies, B.A., LL.B. (Adelaide), M.A. D. Phil. (Sussex)

... (T)his chapter aims (quite modestly) to demonstrate three philosophical theses:
(1) Jurisprudence Is Boring;
(2) The Earth Is (Also) Flat; and
(3) We Are Not Cabbages.

How random is that?! It is an interesting article though - obtuse yet strangely tittilating. It also had quotations from other resources, such as this one by Soren Kierkegaard:

"Since boredom advances and boredom is the root of all evil, no wonder then, that the world goes backwards, that evil spreads. This can be traced back to the very beginning of the world. The gods were bored; therefore they created human beings. Adam was bored because he was alone; therefore Eve was created. Since that moment, boredom entered the world and grew in quantity in exact proportion to the growth of population. Adam was bored alone; then Adam and Eve were bored togeter; then Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel were bored en famille. After that, the population of the world increased and the nations were bored en masse. To amuse themselves, they hit upon the notion of building a tower so high and is a terrible demonstration of how boredom had gained the upper hand. Then they were dispersed abroad, just as people now travel abroad, but they continued to be bored.

Here's another gem from an off-beat seminar paper by Charles Yablon:

The papers that have preceded me have all been extremely original and interesting.

I must provide the missing Derridean supplement. I must be boring.

This is not difficult for me. I am a lawyer.

I know many boring things.

Many very, very boring things.

I must be boring. I must bore. But in another sense, to bore is to dig, to prove under the surface, to uncover that which has been hidden, to view that which has not previously been seen.

In that sense, the papers that have preceded me have been very boring indeed, and I may truthfully say that I hope I may be only half as boring as those who have preceded me.

Like I said, obtuse but tittilating article. I'm still trying to make sense of it.