This Court: A Philosophy Roleplay

[Vienna Eliot]

This Court
ap h i l o s o p h yr o l e p l a y

The Honorable, the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Philosophy. Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of Philosophy, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save philosophy and this Honorable Court.

Is man condemned to create illusions about himself? Can we prove a scientific hypothesis? Is it our duty to seek out the truth? Would we have more freedom without the state?

Established to answer these questions and more, the Supreme Court of Philosophy hears oral arguments from the greatest thinkers and the fiercest attorneys. After deliberation and a vote, the Court can finally settle some of the toughest questions mankind has grappled with throughout its history.

The Justices of the Court hear arguments on questions of philosophy. After a brief deliberation among each other to figure out where each one stands, they then vote on a resolution to the case. One or more Justices in the majority deliver the opinion of the Court, while other Justices may dissent and concur in their own opinions. Some cases are heard by all the Justices; others are heard by just a few. Apply to be a Justice below.

Code: Select all

[b]Justice App[/b]
[box][b]Justice Name:[/b]
[b]Briefly describe your Justice's philosophy/interests:[/b][/box]

Attorneys admitted before the Bar of the Court bring questions before the Court and present oral arguments. Arguments may be made by one or multiple attorneys on each side. Apply to be an attorney below.

Code: Select all

[b]Attorney App[/b]
[box][b]Attorney Name:[/b]
[b]Potential Case Ideas:[/b]
[list][/list][/box]

Bringing a case before the Court
For a case to be brought before the Court, it requires at least one attorney willing to argue for it and one arguing against it; further, it requires at least three Justices willing to hear it. Cases should be posed as questions that can be answered with a yes or a no. They can be broad, and might have multiple questions contained within the question itself. They should try and make few assumptions, but if they do they should be adequately explained in the summary and agreed upon as stipulations by all attorneys on both sides.

The Chief Justice (OP) will schedule cases and can reject poorly crafted ones. The presiding Justice for a particular case may set the procedure for the hearing. Generally, it may involve hearing each attorney individually, allowing Justices to ask questions, and the attorneys arguing head to head. Specifics vary depending on the case and the Justices. Apply to bring a case below.

Code: Select all

[b]Case App[/b]
[box][b]Question:[/b]
[b]Brief Summary:[/b]
[b]Will you argue for or against?:[/b][/box]

Justices

Attorneys

Rules

1. OP Rights. I reserve the right, as Chief Justice and OP, to control this roleplay in order to make it better for everyone participating. That includes enforcing these rules.
2. Posting Frequency. If you commit to argue or hear a case, follow through with it. Attorneys should post regularly during the hearing, answering questions and making arguments. Justices should read all the posts and take the time to ask
3. Cheating. Please don't cheat: this means no substantively editing posts after you make them, no godmodding, no metagaming, and no looking things up when your character is in a situation that they wouldn't be able to do the same.
4. Respect. Respect other players, respect the roleplay, and follow NS site rules.

[Vienna Eliot]

Here are my apps. Everyone can have an attorney and a Justice, but you cannot both hear and argue a case.

Justice App

Justice Name: Vienna Eliot
Describe your Justice's philosophy/interests: Chief Justice Vienna Eliot is largely concerned with three fields: epistemology, ethics, and political philosophy. His views are informed by critical theory and postmodernism. Interested namely in questions that relate to the social sciences and to literature, Eliot is read in classic literary poststructuralists like Derrida and Barthes, as well as French and American contemporaries like Foucault, Deleuze, and Butler.

Attorney App

Attorney Name: Joyce Wu
Potential Case Ideas:

• Is man condemned to create illusions about himself?
• Can we prove a scientific hypothesis?
• Is it our duty to seek out the truth?
• Would we have more freedom without the state?

I'll also be proposing one case to start us off. As with any case, it will require at least an attorney arguing for it and one against it, as well as three justices to hear it.

Case App

Question: Is humanity performative?
Brief Summary: Butler argues gender is performative. In other words, gender is not what one is, but what one does. The question presented before the Court asks if this same assessment is applicable to humanity, or humanness.
Will you argue for or against?: For

[Vienna Eliot]

This post will be reserved for a docket and other information. This thread is now open!