Abstract
In the XVIIth century the conflict which opposed the jansenists to the jesuits involved the problem of the due process in theological matter. The jesuits heralded the thesis that the infallibility of the Church has to be extended from dogmatics (‘quaestio iuris’) to the historical facts (‘quaestio facti’). On the opposite side Arnauld maintained that such an opinion was ‘monstruous’: also in religious matters the ‘fact’ has to be proved according to the principles of a due process, and not by authority. In this article the thesis pleaded by the jansenists is considered in connection with the model of argumentative procedure offered by the Port-Royal logic.
The Logique ou Art de penser (1622) by Antoine Arnauld and Pierre Nicole seems to have rediscovered the classical principles of the theory of argumentation: from the burden of proof to the idea of probable truth. But really a new model of adversary-system has been introduced into the modern mind, which is very different in concept from the topical tradition. The basic metaphor of combat, implying that the truth will prevail in the fight, is compatible with the epistemological premises of the modern logic (as the separation between ‘fact’ and ‘value’). Therefore the problem of the fact-finding seems to be attracted into the area of the logic of information, and not of the theory of argumentation.
Similar content being viewed by others
Bibliographie
Armengaud, F.: 1984, ‘La pertinence: réflexion juridique et conception dialogique’, Archives de philosophie du droit 29, 155–168.
Ceyssens, L.: 1974, ‘Le fait dans la condamnation de Jansénius et dans le serment antijanséniste’, Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique LXIX (3–4), 697–734.
Duval, M.: 1897, La préparation des Ordonnances de 1667 et 1670 et Guillaume de Lamoignon, Marchal et Billard, Paris.
Foriers, P.: 1982, ‘La conception de la preuve dans l'école de droit naturel’, in La pensée juridique de Paul Foriers, Bruylant, Bruxelles, t. II, pp. 473–492.
Giuliani, A.: 1961 (réimpr. 1991), Il concetto di prova: contributo alla logica giuridica, Giuffré, Milano.
Giuliani, A.: 1984, ‘Droit, mouvement et réminiscence’, Archives de philosophie du droit 29, 101–116.
Giuliani, A.: 1988, ‘Prova in generale (filosofia del diritto)’, Enciclopedia del diritto, t. XXXVII, Giuffré, Milano, pp. 518–579.
Giuliani, A.: 1990, ‘La logique de la controverse dans la procédure judiciare’, in F. Gil (éd.), Controverses scientifiques et philosophiques, Fragmentos, Lisboa, pp. 31–40.
Hamblin, C.L.: 1972, Fallacies, Methuen, London.
Kotarbinski, T.: 1963, ‘L'éristique, cas particulier de la théorie de la lutte’, Logique et analyse, n.s., 21–24, 19–29.
Laingui, A.: 1990, ‘Théologie morale, casuistique et droit pénal: le juge criminiel dans la Somme théologique de Saint Thomas d'Aquin’, in F. Stevens et D. van den Auweele (éds.), ‘Houd Voet bij Stuk’ (Xenia Iuris Historiae G. Van Dievoet oblata), Leuven, pp. 483–502.
Laporte:, J.: 1952, La doctrine de Port-Royal, Paris, 392.
Marin, L.: 1978, intr. à: Arnauld, A. Nicole, P., La logique ou l'Art de penser, 5ème éd., Flammarion, Paris.
Olaso, E. de: 1990, ‘Sobre la filosofia leibniziana de las controversias’, in F. Gil (éd.), Controverses scientifiques et philosophiques, Fragmentos, Lisboa, pp. 115–130.
Perelman, Ch.: 1965, ‘La spécificité de la preuve juridique’, in Justice et raison, réédité dans Ethique et Droit, 1990, Editions de l'Université de l'uxelles, pp. 693–705.
Picardi, N.: 1988, ‘Les racines historiques et logiques du code de procédure civile’, in A. Giuliani et N. Picardi (éds.), L'educazione giurdica, vol. V, t. I, Edizione scientifiche italiane, Napoli, pp. 241–256.
Todescan, F.: 1987, Le radici teologiche del giusnaturalismo laico. II: Il problema della secolarizzazione nel pensiero giuridico di Jean Domat, Giuffré, Milano.
Wallace, K.R.: 1965, ‘Bacon's Conception of Rhetoric’, in R.F. Howes (éd.), Rhetorical Studies of Rhetoric and Rhetoricians, Cornell University Press, New York, pp. 114–138.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Giuliani, A. Les “règles de la discussion légitime” dans la logique de Port-Royal. Argumentation 5, 263–273 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00128810
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00128810