Abstract

In response to arguments made by Professors Levvis, Patterson and Eisele, I attempt to clarify a few of the main themes of my book, Law's Premises, Law's Promise. Professor Levvis’ paper gives me the opportunity to contrast the status of propositions held true by disputants in legal debate with propositions held fast as bedrock convictions about the nature of reality and experience. Professor Patterson's arguments allow me to show how legal decision making as a deliberative or interpretative practice rests, as all practices do, on a foundation of shared understanding (of mutually “knowing one's way about”). And Professor Eisele's remarks stimulate a discussion of the relation of conceptual analysis and the analysis of practices.