对当下理论法学研究中本质主义误区之反思

发布时间：2019-01-16 02:36

【摘要】： 最早可以追溯到柏拉图的本质主义哲学在社会科学(包括理论法学)研究中造成了极大的混乱状态,它使一些人相信在纷杂繁复的法律现象背后存在着某种一致性与统一性的本质,并认为正是这些本质奠定了全部法学知识的基础;此外,它还使一些人将概念问题当成真正的问题来论争,并使另外一些人始终对能够指引我们法制发展与法学进步的所谓“理想图景”抱有幻想。通过分析本质主义的认知心理学与社会科学史根源,以及通过对本质主义者可能用来作为事物之本质属性的特征的考察,这些想法与观念可被归结为陷入了本质主义误区,并可能通过揭示本质主义谬误的方式予以澄清。如此,则本质主义哲学可被驱逐出理论法学的研究领域之外。全文分为五个部分。? 第一部分“问题的提出”,邓正来先生的《中国法学向何处去》一文体现了未被肃清的柏拉图情结,以及其对本质主义的不清醒认识;邓文并非孤例,对于本质主义,总的来说,国内法学研究者的态度主要是不自觉的或半自觉的,这表现在当下理论法学研究中的诸多方面。? 第二部分“本质主义的哲学史根源”。首先是柏拉图与亚里士多德的本质主义。包括柏拉图理念与现实的区分以及亚里士多德的定义方法。其次是克里普克的本质主义。在模态逻辑发展之后,克里普克试图使源自柏拉图与亚里士多德的本质主义观念与方法更加科学也更加精致。最后是对上述两种本质主义的简评。? 第三部分“本质主义对事物本质的解答及其批判”,本质主义对于何者是事物的本质有不同的回答,通过仔细的考察将会发现这些回答都是含混不清的。这些说法包括共同特征说、必然特征说、内在特征说。? 第四部分“本质主义在理论法学研究中所造成的混乱”,将讨论三个方面的问题,分别是“基本前提问题”、“定义问题”、与“理想图景问题”。? 第五部分“结语”,通过上述对本质主义哲学史的考察,对事物本质之不同回答的批判,以及通过对本质主义思维方式在理论法学研究中所造成的混乱的澄清,揭示本质主义的谬误,从而倡导一种真正的经验科学的思维与研究方式。?
[Abstract]:It can be traced back to Plato's philosophy of essentialism, which caused great confusion in the study of social sciences (including theoretical law). It makes some people believe that there is a kind of consistency and unity behind the complicated legal phenomena, and that it is these essence that laid the foundation of all the legal knowledge. In addition, it makes some people argue the concept problem as the real problem, and others always have the illusion of the so-called "ideal prospect" which can guide the development of our legal system and the progress of the law. By analyzing the historical roots of cognitive psychology and social science of essentialism, and by examining the characteristics that essentialists may use as the essential attributes of things, these ideas and ideas can be attributed to the misunderstanding of essentialism. And may be clarified by revealing the essentialist fallacy. Thus, essentialist philosophy can be expelled from the field of theoretical jurisprudence. The full text is divided into five parts. In the first part, the proposition of "the problem", Deng Zhenglai's "where does the Chinese Law go" reflects the Plato complex which has not been eliminated, and its unsober understanding of essentialism; Deng Wen is not an isolated example. Generally speaking, the attitude of domestic legal researchers is mainly unconscious or semi-conscious, which is manifested in many aspects of current theoretical legal research. The second part is the origin of philosophy history of essentialism. The first is Plato and Aristotle's essentialism. It includes the distinction between Plato's idea and reality and Aristotle's definition. The second is Kripke's essentialism. After the development of modal logic, Kripke tried to make the essentialism from Plato and Aristotle more scientific and refined. Finally is to the above two kinds of essentialism brief comment.? In the third part, "essentialism's answer to the essence of things and its criticism", essentialism has different answers to what is the essence of things. Through careful examination, we will find that these answers are ambiguous. These statements include the common feature theory, the inevitable feature theory, the intrinsic characteristic theory. The fourth part, "the chaos caused by essentialism in the study of theoretical law", will discuss three problems, namely, "basic premise problem", "definition problem", and "ideal picture problem". The fifth part "conclusion", through the above investigation to the philosophy history of essentialism, the criticism of the different answers to the essence of things, as well as the clarification of the confusion caused by the way of thinking of essentialism in the study of theoretical jurisprudence. To reveal the fallacy of essentialism, thus advocating a true way of thinking and research in empirical science.
【学位授予单位】：南京大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2009
【分类号】：D90

【相似文献】