
V tomto profilu vyznívá Dworkin - narozdíl od Posnera - jako velmi společenský člověk. Viz např. jeho následující charakteristiky citované z daného článku:
Jedna je od Stephena Perryho (mj. Dworkinův žák a také velmi zajímavý právní filosof - viz např. jeho příspěvek v knížce na Hart's Postscript), který uvádí: “He was flamboyant, always extremely well dressed, very witty and very extroverted. He’s a public figure. He has a reputation beyond the academy. He’s a brilliant conversationalist.”
Druhá je od Dworkinova spolupřednášejícího, politického filosofa Thomase Nagela:
“He has a huge appetite for the real and material world and its aesthetic aspects. He dresses much more elegantly than anyone academic I know. He always was the person who had the
latest computer, and people like me would turn to him for advice. He loves to travel.”
“He has a huge appetite for the real and material world and its aesthetic aspects. He dresses much more elegantly than anyone academic I know. He always was the person who had the
latest computer, and people like me would turn to him for advice. He loves to travel.”
Skoro mi to srovnání mezi Posnerem a Dworkinem přijde v tomto směru tak trochu jako black & white a teď nemám na mysli jejich právně-filosofické teorie, byť i tam by to srovnání dopadadlo asi hodně podobně.
No a pointa by asi mohla být ... můžete být společenský člověk, který nepovažuje společenské tlachání s přáteli za ztrátu času, chodit do hospy a tak a přesto být úspěšný právník, právní teoretik či filosof .... :o)))
PS: V tom článku je naprosto úžasná fotka, jak Dworkin hraje cosi jako fotbal se svým synem ... ta fajfka v ústech a strnulý postoj jsou úžasné ;o)
PPS: Za zmínku také stojí některé pasáže reprodukované diskuse mezi Dworkinem a Learned Handem o případu Brown:
"... If Brown was wrongly decided under Hand’s approach, Dworkin suggested, there must be something wrong with the approach. Hand had wanted to avoid discussing the case, though it was the elephant in the room. Later viewed by history as a triumph, at the time, Brown was subject to much criticism for what was said to be judicial activismungrounded in the Constitution.
“You simply cannot duck that one,” Dworkin told Hand. “We argued and argued,” Dworkin told me, “and finally I said, ‘Judge, you aren’t saying anything about the Brown decision. In your eyes it must have been wrong.’
“‘Fuck you,’ he said,” Dworkin continued. “Steam came out of his eyebrows and he grabbed his yellow pad, and he started to scribble, and he started throwing away and throwing away and throwing away.” Hand could not produce a draft which could justify the result in the Brown case using methods of constitutional interpretation which met his standards—that were what he considered principled. ..."
“You simply cannot duck that one,” Dworkin told Hand. “We argued and argued,” Dworkin told me, “and finally I said, ‘Judge, you aren’t saying anything about the Brown decision. In your eyes it must have been wrong.’
“‘Fuck you,’ he said,” Dworkin continued. “Steam came out of his eyebrows and he grabbed his yellow pad, and he started to scribble, and he started throwing away and throwing away and throwing away.” Hand could not produce a draft which could justify the result in the Brown case using methods of constitutional interpretation which met his standards—that were what he considered principled. ..."