Nathaniel Sussman

The question of what makes a ‘law’ distinct from other kinds of rules and social norms – often called the project of ‘conceptual jurisprudence’ – gives rise to a classic debate in modern legal theory. The debate has historically centred on the competing Western views of (i) natural law theory and (ii) legal positivism. Meanwhile, the ancient Chinese school of thought known as ‘Legalism’ (法家) has remained an under-explored branch of Eastern philosophy, despite its many insights into the nature of government and legal systems. This paper argues that Legalism, when interpreted as a system of conceptual jurisprudence, offers a genuine alternative to both of the dominant Western theories. It achieves this by invoking normative reasoning to conceptually distinguish ‘laws’ from other sorts of rules at the most fundamental level of analysis, but also by doing so without any necessary reference to notions of morality. This unique characteristic of Legalism is introduced in this paper as ‘form prudentialism’.

This paper addresses and proposes to resolve a longstanding problem in the philosophy of physics: whether and in what sense Albert Einstein’s Chasing the Light thought experiment was significant in the development of the theory of special relativity. Although Einstein granted this thought experiment pride of place in his 1949 Autobiographical Notes, philosophers and physicists continue to debate about what, if anything, the experiment establishes. I claim that we ought to think of Chasing the Light as Einstein’s first attempt to problematize the very idea of the electromagnetic ether frame, and that it thereby contributed to his eventual adoption of one of special relativity’s two foundational axioms: the “light postulate”. This interpretation requires the assumption that Einstein had presupposed special relativity’s other axiom, the “principle of relativity”, when initially considering Chasing the Light. This argument is novel insofar as it provides evidence that such a presupposition by Einstein is both conceptually and historically plausible. Moreover, this paper directly challenges John D. Norton’s compelling claim that Chasing the Light is best understood as a refutation of emission theories of light propagation; while both interpretations of the experiment are conceptually coherent, I argue that the interpretation found in this paper is supported more straightforwardly by historical evidence.