As a tool, the function of the camera is to present, and the rational and seemingly irrational intervention of the subject will distort what is presented, and there is a second level of distortion, which is when the audience watches this act. These two distortions distort the image as a whole, and at the same time give a magnifying effect to elements that voluntarily or involuntarily enter the picture, a mechanism that reduces the negative effects of things.
To present is to use the right to speak, and here is just to use, because presentation does not have words, and presentation will eventually degenerate into sophistry. For the reason, please refer to the first paragraph. The social and political use of legal philosophy is also inescapable of antinomy. Pessimistically speaking, once it joins the WTO, anything can be avoided.
The Simpson case is an occasional work. The case not only exposes the incompetence of civilization, but the goodness that is diligently pursued cannot be manifested by the law, so this law should be broken, but most people still think that this law has done the right thing. Why does the movie repeatedly emphasize that people in the know should speak up? Because today's Americans are very cynic, the uncles like to drink a little wine in the bar and complain, and few people do the substantive things. What is further exposed is that the fundamental foundation of the philosophy of law is not solid, the law needs to use the philosophy of law, and how can the beings in the world that the philosophy of law even think about to regulate for the law?
View more about The Insider reviews
