It is weird in the context of "modern thought," which is ironic perhaps, but it's not unusual... historically speaking. Once you have generations of commentary

It is weird in the context of "modern thought," which is ironic perhaps, but it's not unusual... historically speaking. Once you have generations of commentary, commentary on commentary, past crisis-resolution precedents, etc.... At this point you have a body of "jurisprudence." This is a lot like jewish torah, or most major schools of islamic jurisprudence. A rich one will contain enough examples, rationalisations and counter rationalisations that a very wide range of arguments can be made within the framework. We like to think of ourselves as rational and rationalistic. rational principles with rational conclusions. The generation of America's founding fathers, and the French revolutionaries was particularly hubristic in this regard. Peak Enlightenment, rar! But real life society doesn't work this way. We evolve. We make judgements instinctively, incorporating lots of conflicting anecdotes, principles and half principles. We create exception cases etc. A body of jurisprudence can act as a formal, social version of this. It's like a history of ideas.