Jeff Lipshaw touches on yours truly in passing in an article that is a response to "Pseudo-Contract and Shared Meaning Analysis" by Professors Robin Bradley Kar and Margaret Radin:
Here we have Professors Kar and Radin, whose access to information, education, and intelligence are unimpeachable. One of them (Kar) is a longstanding friend and correspondent. I have nothing but the highest regard for them. But, in this instance, I think of them the way I sometimes do about someone, also a friend, one of the world’s leading corporate law scholars, whose access to information, education, and intelligence is equally unimpeachable. That professor is also a very publicly committed Catholic,58 and I am quite sure has made his own ontological and epistemological commitments no amount of reasoned discourse could ever cause me to accept. Wittgenstein’s (and derivatively Ribeiro’s) assessment was that this kind of disagreement is incapable of reconciliation. Instead, a change in belief of one of the interlocutors requires conversion. “If reconciliation is to occur, then one of us must forsake reason-giving, (non-rationally) reject our old rule, and (non-rationally) accept a new rule, thereby ending the dispute.”
58 Stephen Bainbridge, On Closeted Christian Law Professors: Thoughts on Dreher’s Kingsfield, PROFESSORBAINBRIDGE.COM, http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professor bainbridgecom/2015/04/on-closeted-christian-law-professors-thoughts-on-drehers- kingsfield.html (Apr. 26, 2015).
I'm grateful for the kind words (which IMHO especially includes the part about being a "publicly committed Catholic," which is at the end of the day what matters most). I trust Jeff will not take it amiss if I reward him by praying for his conversion, since reasoned discourse apparently won't work in his case.
Contract law geeks will definitely want to go read the whole article on its own merits, of course.
