This short paper appears in a volume of original essays, On Philosophy in American Law (Francis J. Mootz III ed., Cambridge Univ. Press 2009). I argue that the undeniable rift between philosophy and law is more than a simple dichotomy of theory and practice. Instead, the sharp distinction between philosophy and law occurred when both disciplines built insular guilds that employed distinctive vocabularies to distinguish themselves from rhetoric, and it is by returning to their roots in rhetoric that philosophy and law might find their common ground in the elucidation of rhetorical knowledge.
Mootz III, Francis Joseph, The Irrelevance of Contemporary Academic Philosophy for Law: Recovering the Rhetorical Tradition (March 25, 2008). ON PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICAN LAW, Francis J. Mootz III, ed., Cambridge U. Press, 2009; UNLV William S. Boyd School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-27
Mootz, Francis J. III, "The Irrelevance of Contemporary Academic Philosophy for Law: Recovering the Rhetorical Tradition" (2008). Scholarly Works. Paper 64.