哈特对维氏后期哲学加以取舍的批判性说明

发布时间：2018-05-20 01:28

本文选题：维特根斯坦 + 哈特　；参考：《西南政法大学》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：二十世纪上半叶,在西方哲学和法哲学中分别产生了两个天才,那就是西方哲学中的维特根斯坦与法哲学中的哈特。有些历史事件存在着巧合,而有一些则是必然。如果我们仔细比对这两位在不同领域作出巨大贡献学者的思想,就会发现,他们之间有着某种思想上的联系。只是不同的学者对于两者之间的联系见仁见智,争论不断。正是这些争论吸引着笔者选择这一题目作为自己研究的课题。通过研究,笔者试图理清长期以来国内学者片面援引、转引所形成的定势思维,即哈特思想的哲学根基主要是J.L.奥斯丁的语言哲学。我的观点是:在承认哈特曾受到J.L.奥斯丁、赖尔等同时期多位牛津哲学家思想的影响这一前提下,哈特更多地受到了维特根斯坦后期哲学思想的影响,更深地打上了维特根斯坦后期哲学的印记,因为维特根斯坦后期哲学中的一些典型概念和更深层次的理论都渗透到了哈特法哲学理论的核心地带。笔者试图以这些典型概念为线索,通过比较研究的方法,以揭示两者在理论方面的实质关系。作为一位饱受争议的巨匠,维特根斯坦后期哲学思想比其前期思想更富于独创性和开拓性精神,其独特的描述性哲学任务、反本质主义的哲学目标以及语法式的哲学研究方法标志着哲学发展的新动向——现代哲学日益向实践哲学方向发展。而这些特点正是被哈特吸取并融入法哲学领域的元素。哈特之所以选择维特根斯坦,既具有偶然性,又具有必然性,是一种偶然中的必然。其偶然性在于时空上的二人交错;必然性在于后者提供的思想利器在当时最能应对法律实证主义面临的理论危机。从表面上看,哈特似乎只是采用了维氏后期哲学中的诸多概念,如语言游戏、开放性结构、标准米等等概念;但实际并不止如此,从更深层次上看,哈特实质性地运用了维氏后期哲学中的核心理念来解决法哲学问题,如哈特用“语言游戏”理论来解决法律的定义问题,将“开放性结构”理念用来解释法律概念在法律实践中遇到的难题,从而使得法律概念既能保持独立的地位而又不失弹性,用“实践哲学”理念为法律实证主义的法律权威思想找到了坚实的根基。当然,哈特的这种吸收并非生搬硬套地照搬维氏的理论,而是批判性的吸收,他吸取了维氏后期哲学中对于自己有用的部分,而摒弃了其中的一些不合理因素。因为维氏的理论适用的领域毕竟与哈特的不同,维氏的理论有自己的适用限度,并且,维氏理论中的某些部分对法哲学的存在地位构成了威胁和否定,这是哈特所不容许的。因此,哈特对这些因素进行了必要的舍去。应当说,哈特运用维氏后期哲学解决法哲学问题是具有积极价值的,不仅超越性地回答了法律的概念问题,而且为法律权威寻找到了适当的位置,并且坚守住了法律实证主义的立场。然而,哈特用维氏理论意图解决法哲学的问题和应对法律实证主义的危机并非一劳永逸的,哈特遗留下的一些问题仍然困扰着法哲学,这些问题都值得我们进一步探讨。
[Abstract]:In the first half of the twentieth Century, two geniuses were created in western philosophy and legal philosophy, namely, Wittgenstein and Hart in the philosophy of law in western philosophy. Some historical events were coincidental, and some were inevitable. If we carefully compare the ideas of the two people who made great contributions in different fields, we will send it. Now, there are some ideological links between them. Only the different scholars have different views on the relationship between them. It is these arguments that attract the author's choice of this subject as a subject of his own research. That is, the philosophical foundation of Hart's thought is mainly J.L. Austen's philosophy of language. My view is that, under the premise that Hart had been influenced by many Oxford philosophers in the period of J.L. Austen and Ryan's equated period, Hart was more influenced by the late Wittgenstein's philosophical thought, and went deeper into the later stage of Wittgenstein. The imprint of philosophy, because some of the typical concepts and deeper theories in Wittgenstein's later philosophy penetrated the core of Hart's theory of legal philosophy. The author tries to reveal the substantive relations between the two theories by means of a comparative study of these typical concepts.
As a highly contentious master, Wittgenstein's late philosophical thought is more ingenious and pioneering than his earlier thought. His unique descriptive philosophical task, the philosophical goal of anti essentialism and the grammatical philosophical research method symbolized the new trend of the development of Philosophy - modern philosophy is increasingly to the practical philosophy side. It is the element that Hart absorbs and integrates into the field of philosophy of law. The reason why Hart chooses Wittgenstein is both contingency and inevitability. It is an accidental necessity. Its contingency lies in the interlacing of two people in time and space; the necessity is that the latter is most capable of dealing with the legal reality at that time. The theoretical crisis of evidence.
On the surface, Hart seems to have only adopted many concepts in the late philosophy of Vivtorinox, such as language games, open structure, standard rice and so on. But in fact, in a deeper way, Hart essentially uses the nuclear psychology of Vivtorinox later philosophy to solve the legal philosophy problem, such as "language game". To solve the problem of the definition of law, the concept of "open structure" is used to explain the difficult problems encountered by legal concept in legal practice, so that the concept of law can not only maintain its independent status but not lose elasticity, and has found a solid foundation for the legal authoritarianism of legal positivism with the concept of "practical philosophy".
Of course, this absorption of Hart is not a rigid copy of the theory of Vivtorinox, but a critical absorption. He absorbs the useful part of Vivtorinox's later philosophy and abandons some of the unreasonable factors. Because, after all, the domain of Vivtorinox's theory is different from that of Hart, the Vivtorinox theory has its own limit of application. And, some parts of the Vivtorinox theory pose a threat and a negation to the existence of the philosophy of law, which Hart does not allow. So Hart has made the necessary rounding out of these factors.
It should be said that Hart used the late philosophy of Vivtorinox to solve the legal philosophy problem with positive value, not only to answer the question of the concept of law transcendent, but also to find the appropriate position for the legal authority, and to hold the position of legal positivism. However, Hart solved the problem and response of the legal philosophy with the theory of Vivtorinox. The crisis of legal positivism is not just once and for all. Some of the problems left by Hart still puzzle legal philosophy. These questions deserve our further discussion.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D909.1

【参考文献】