Spirit and Letter

A pair of opposing concepts receiving little attention from either orthodox or heterodox Philosophy of Language is 'Spirit' vs. 'Letter'. The contrast 'Spirit of the Law' vs. 'Letter of the Law' is familiar, but it does not seem to fall easily under the rubrics of either Sense vs. Reference, or Speech vs. Writing. For, a Law has no Referent, and Speech can violate its Spirit as much as can Writing. One example which exposes the contrast is the Golden Rule--'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. Read literally, this Principle endorses a belligerent person's, i. e. someone who wants others to pick a fight with them, efforts to pick a fight with others, which most would agree violates its Spirit. Kant's response is, rather than either bemoaning or cheering the insubordination of Letter to Spirit, to write a better Law, one that would more precisely capture the Spirit of the original--'Act only on that maxim that you can at the same time will to be a universal Law'. While the latter does not roll easily off of a tongue, even of one of the few who are conversant with it, it better expresses the Spirit of high-minded reciprocity than does the Golden Rule. Shortcomings in all laws are similarly treated--their Letter of a Law is a not necessarily conclusive Evolvement of its Spirit.