E 只是随手翻一下 《Law's Empire》 p.31 "Some legal philosophers offer a surprising answer. They say that theoretical disagreement about the grounds of "law" must be a pretense because the very meaning of the word "law" makes law depend on certain specific criteria, and that any lawyer who rejected or challenged those criteria would be speaking self-contradictory nonsense." 把法律的意义系於特定语义规则的法理论，对於Dworkin而言都是法的语义学理论。 p.43 "If legal argument is mainly or even partly about pivotal cases, then lawyers cannot all be using the same factual criteria for deciding when propositions of law are true and false. Their arguments would be mainly or partly about which criteria they should use. So the project of the semantic theories, the project of digging out shared rules from a care- ful study of what lawyers say and do, would be doomed to fail." 法的语义学理论是失败的，他们都被语义学的刺给刺到了。 (法的语义学理论认为法律中真正的争议都是经验争议，Dworkin认为真正的争议 是理论争议，不是考察经验中的事实可以解决的） 详细的内容还是要再看一次第一章会好一些。 ※ 引述《fulyh (...)》之铭言： : 请教法理学高手们.... : 我看了法律帝国（中译版）之後， : 实在是无法理解第二章第一节的内容为什麽要取标题跟"语义学"有关？ : 又为什麽提到"刺"？ : 内容方面，Dworkin怎麽说，我就怎麽记。Dworkin说前一章引起的灾难性论证， : 他称之为语义学之刺。 : 但重点就是不懂标题为什麽取名为"语义学之刺"...是有什麽好成为"刺"的呢？.... : 烦请高首不吝说文解字一下...感恩不尽.... --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 220.136.176.118 ※ 编辑: qqpiggy 来自: 220.136.176.118 (11/08 00:46) ※ 编辑: qqpiggy 来自: 220.136.176.118 (11/08 00:50) ※ 编辑: qqpiggy 来自: 220.136.176.118 (11/08 00:57) ※ 编辑: qqpiggy 来自: 220.136.176.118 (11/08 01:13)