The author outlines one form of analytical legal realism as the junction of three main theses. According to its first main thesis, interpretive sentences in legal discourse are ascriptive sentences with no cognitive function. According to the second thesis, the law is the set of norms in force, i.e. the norms actually applied in the past and predictably applied in the future by law-applying agencies. The third thesis is that legal science as a cognitive activity must not be confused with (...) legal scholarship. Although legal scholars do engage in cognitive activities, their work mainly consists in non-cognitive activities such as interpretation and legal construction. | An earlier version of this statement was published in Revus 19 in Italian, French, and Croatian. (shrink)

According to the common thinking of continental European lawyers, a rule is invalid each and every time either it was not produced in accordance with the metarules which govern the production of rules in the system, or it is inconsistent with a “superior” (higher‐ranked) rule belonging to the same system. Thus, a better understanding of the concept of invalidity demands a careful inquiry into the various kinds of meta‐rules which govern the production of rules as well as into the various (...) kinds of normative hierarchies. The paper is mainly devoted to such an analysis. Five different grounds for invalidity are distinguished. The analysis further shows that invalidity can affect rules as well as legal provisions and legal sources. Further, invalidity should be sharply distinguished from non‐existence (existence being a sufficient condition for rules to be applied). In most legal systems, invalid rules too are susceptible of judicial application: At least, until their invalidity is “declared” (in a constitutive way) by a competent organ (namely, a constitutional court, as far as statutory rules are concerned). (shrink)

Este trabajo bosqueja una teoría analítica y realista de la interpretación jurídica. Analítica, en el sentido que su método es el análisis lógico del lenguaje de los juristas. Realista, en el sentido que, por un lado, sostiene que el derecho es indeterminado y, por otro lado, representa la interpretación desarrollada por los jueces como una actividad intrínsecamente discrecional. En la primera parte, se introducen las distinciones fundamentales entre: interpretación “in abstracto” e interpretación “in concreto”; interpretación cognoscitiva, decisoria, y creativa; interpretación (...) en sentido estricto y construcción jurídica. Esta última distinción tiene una importancia especial: la interpretación en sentido estricto consiste en atribuir significado a un texto normativo, mientras que la construcción jurídica consiste en formular normas nuevas, que se pretenden implícitas en el sistema jurídico. En la segunda parte, se analizan, en su estructura lógica, las más difundidas técnicas argumentativas por las cuales los juristas suelen justificar sus operaciones interpretativas y constructivas. (shrink)

The author discusses a number of issues in the theory of legal sources. The first topic is whether sources should be conceived of as acts or texts. The alternatives are connected with two competing theories of legal interpretation (viz., the cognitive theory and the sceptical theory), which entail different concepts of legal rules and law‐making. The second topic is whether a “formal” or a “material” criterion of recognition of sources should be preferred. The third section is devoted to the analysis (...) of rules of change. Four theories of rules of change are discussed, and five kinds of such rules are distinguished. The fourth section concerns judicial law‐making, with special reference to the creation of new legal rules by constitutional courts. (shrink)

Abstract.According to the normative theory of legal science, juristic ought‐sentences describe rules, since legal science just deals with rules, and rules cannot be described but by means of ought‐sentences. The author challenges this view. Two different constructions of “describing rules” are proposed: Namely, either interpreting or stating the validity of rules. “Interpreting rules,” in its turn, can be understood in three different senses: listing all the possible meanings of rule‐formulations, reporting the different interpretations a rule‐formulation has in fact received by (...) courts, or ascribing meaning to rule‐formulations. However, the author argues that ought‐sentences are not the proper tools to accomplish such tasks. At the same time, juristic ought‐sentences cannot be understood as validity statements, since they neither mention any rule whatsoever, nor include the term “valid.” Further, if validity‐statements were ought‐sentences, their logical behaviour would reflect the logic of rules themselves. However, as the late Kelsen argued, things do not run this way, since two inconsistent ought‐sentences, if understood as validity statements, can paradoxically both be true, as well as both false. Hence, validity‐statements cannot be reduced to ought‐sentences iterating the rules which they (are supposed to) refer to. (shrink)

En este artículo se analiza la famosa distinción entre las concepciones hilética y expresiva de las normas. Su objetivo principal es rechazar la tésis de Alchourrón y Bulygin según la cual dichas concepciones ofrecen dos soluciones incompatibles a un mismo problema. Según el autor, las dos concepciones responden a dos problemas distintos y parcialmente independientes: un «problema de la génesis» atinente al proceso de la producción de las normas y un «problema de la naturaleza» atinente al producto del dicho proceso. (...) Por ende, las dos concepciones de las normas no son necesariamente incompatibles, aunque la respuesta a uno de los dos problemas condiciona en alguna medida la respuesta al otro. | Una versión previa de este texto fue publicada en Riccardo Guastini, Otras distinciones. (shrink)

Comme le font tous les juristes réalistes, Ross soutient lui aussi que les juges créent du droit. Un examen scrupuleux permet cependant de montrer, non seulement, qu’il existe chez lui plusieurs variantes de cette thèse et, mieux encore, qu’aucune de ces variantes n’est parfaitement convaincante car les concepts utilisés par Ross manquent souvent de précision.

El realismo jurídico como teoría positivista del derecho Desde los años sesenta del siglo XX, siguiendo a Bobbio, todo el mundo puede distinguir entre tres formas de positivismo jurídico : metodológico, teórico, y ideológico. Por cierto, en la literatura iusfilosófica italiana, a menudo se contrapone el LP al realismo jurídico. Sin embargo, ¿de qué tipo de LP y de LR estamos hablando? En cuanto al LR, los iusfilósofos que oponen realismo y positivismo tienen en mente esencialmente el realismo escandinavo, especialmente (...) Olivecrona y Ross. En cuanto al LP, aquellos iusfilósofos que oponen realismo y positivismo tienen en mente, o bien la teoría del derecho dominante en el siglo XIX, o bien la teoría pura de Kelsen. La oposición entre el LR y la teoría pura es fundada. No obstante, tal oposición no surge de una supuesta postura anti-positivista del LR. Depende más bien de dos tesis kelsenianas no positivistas : el concepto de validez como fuerza vinculante, y la teoría normativa de la ciencia jurídica, concebida como un conjunto de oraciones deónticas que se hacen eco de normas válidas. La oposición entre el LR y el LP del siglo XIX es igualmente fundada, pero no tiene sentido cuando referida al LP contemporáneo, que consiste principalmente en una actitud metodológica hacia el derecho. El LR es una visión abiertamente positivista del derecho. Sin duda, no todos los juristas positivistas son realistas, pero todos los realistas son positivistas. (shrink)

Desde hace un tiempo Luigi Ferrajoli viene sosteniendo que, en un régimen de constitución rígida, la ciencia jurídica es una ciencia normativa1: no ya en el sentido de que tiene que ver con normas.

Avtor oriše eno od oblik analitičnega pravnega realizma kor priredje treh osnovnih tez. Po prvi tezi so razlagalne izjave v pravnem govoru pripisovalne izjave brez spoznavne vloge. Po drugi tezi je pravo skupek vplivnih norm, tj. tistih norm, ki so bile dejansko uporabljene v preteklosti in jih bodo v prihodnosti verjetno uporabila pristojna telesa. Po tretji tezi se pravne znanosti kot spoznavne dejavnosti ne sme zamenjevati s pravno stroko. Čeprav se pravna stroka udejstvuje tudi v spoznavnih dejavnostih, njeno delo sestavljajo (...) predvsem nespoznavne dejavnosti, kakršni sta pravno razlaganje in pravotvorje. | Starejša različica tega članka je bila objavljena v Revusu 19 v italijanščini, francoščini in hrvaščini. (shrink)

El autor esboza una forma del iusrealismo analítico como una conjunción de tres tesis principales. Según su primera tesis principal, los enunciados interpretativos en el discurso jurídico son enunciados adscriptivos sin ninguna función cognitiva. De acuerdo con la segunda tesis, el derecho es un conjunto de normas vigentes, eso es, las normas efectivamente aplicadas en el pasado y previsiblemente aplicadas en el futuro. La tercera tesis constata que la ciencia jurídica como actividad cognitiva no debe confundirse con la dogmática. Aunque (...) los juristas dogmáticos realizan actividades cognitivas, su trabajo consiste mayormente en actividades no cognitivas como la interpretación y la construcción jurídica. | Una versión previa de esta posición fue publicada en Revus 19 en italiano, francés y croata. (shrink)

En este trabajo se analizan los conceptos de laguna axiológica y de derrotabilidad desde el punto de vista de una teoría "realista" de interpretación. En base a algunos ejemplos se intenta mostrar que ambos conceptos aparecen como resultado de la interpretación de los textos jurídicos. Tanto las lagunas axiológicas, como la derrotabilidad no son propiedades objetivas de sistemas jurídicos, porque dependen de las valoraciones de los intérpretes y la acción de interpretar no es conocer el derecho, sino contribuir a hacerlo. (...) The analysis of the concepts of axiological gaps and of defeasibility from the point of view of a "realistic" theory of interpretation shows -by means of several examples- that both concepts are the result of interpretation of legal texts. Axiological gaps and defeasibility are not objective properties of legal systems, because they depend essentially on valuations of the interpreters and interpretation is not cognition of law, but participation in making law. (shrink)

Bobbio est l'un des fondateurs et l'un des principaux représentants de la théorie du droit de tendance analytique, qui constitue aujourd'hui le courant le plus important du positivisme juridique. Pour lui, à la différence d'un Kelsen, le droit n'est rien d'autre qu'un discours, un ensemble d'actes de communication linguistique prescriptifs, c'est-à-dire des énoncés (ni vrais, ni faux), visant à influer sur la conduite d'autrui. Par conséquent, la science juridique n'est pas une science " normative ", mais plus simplement une analyse (...) linguistique : l'analyse du discours du législateur. La science du droit est ainsi réduite par Bobbio à un " discours sur un discours ", un métalangage descriptif. Mais, dans la mesure où ce discours remplit une fonction sociale, la théorie du droit constitue aussi un instrument d'analyse du pouvoir et le droit peut être compris comme un ordre qui organise l'usage de la force. La méthode analytique jette ainsi un jour nouveau sur les grands problèmes de la méthodologie et de la théorie du droit. L'ouvrage est enrichi d'une étude sur l'œuvre et la méthode de Bobbio, par Riccardo Guastini, professeur à l'Université de Gênes, l'un des meilleurs représentants actuels de l'école analytique italienne. (shrink)

The author discusses a number of topics related to the concept of legal order and the structure of legal orders. In particular, the following theses are challenged: (1) legal orders are sets of rules; (2) the criterion of membership to such sets is validity; (3) legal orders are dynamic sets; (4) legal orders are provided with a hierarchical configuration; (5) legal orders are coherent and consistent sets.

Este ensayo, motivado por una crítica de Riccardo Guastini, ilustra el papel de la lógica en el derecho y precisamente: a) en la construcción de la teoría del derecho, b) en el razonamiento y en los discursos desarrollados por las disciplinas jurídicas positivas y c) en los razonamientos y en las operaciones de operadores jurídicos y en particular de los jueces.

Este ensayo, motivado por una crítica de Riccardo Guastini, ilustra el papel de la lógica en el derecho y precisamente: a) en la construcción de la teoría del derecho, b) en el razonamiento y en los discursos desarrollados por las disciplinas jurídicas positivas y c) en los razonamientos y en las operaciones de operadores jurídicos y en particular de los jueces.

Interesante y muy bien lograda aproximación al universo teórico construido por Ricardo Guastini, filósofo del derecho italiano.

Giornalista, critico letterario, romanziere e saggista, Maurice Blanchot ha il merito di aver costantemente interrogato il confine incerto tra la parola filosofica e quella della finzione. Lungi dal voler dar peso alle eventuali incoerenze tra i testi e la biografia dell’autore, ci si propone qui di indicare nell’instancabile analisi del nesso tra la propria attività di scrittura e il senso della partecipazione politica, l’angolatura più efficace da cui cogliere la narrazione, teorizzazione e messa in pratica di un’autentica dissoluzione del soggetto.

Over the last three decades, the rise of embodied cognition (EC) articulated in various schools (or versions) of embodied, embedded, extended and enacted cognition (Gallagher’s 4E) has offered AI a way out of traditional computationalism—an approach (or an understanding) loosely referred to as embodied AI. This view has split into various branches ranging from a weak form on the brink of functionalism (loosely represented by Clarks’ parity principle) to a strong form (often corresponding to autopoietic-friendly enactivism) suggesting that body−world interactions (...) constitute cognition. From an ontological perspective, however, constitution is a problematic notion with no obvious empirical or technical advantages. This paper discusses the ontological issues of these two approaches in regard to embodied AI and its ontological commitments: circularity, epiphenomenalism, mentalism, and disguised dualism. The paper also outlines an even more radical approach that may offer some ontological advantages. The new approach, called the mind-object identity, is then briefly compared with sensorimotor direct realism and with the embodied identity theory. (shrink)

Neoplatonists from Plotinus onward incorporate Aristotle's logic and ontology into their philosophies: this process is of both intrinsic and historical interest and paves the way for subsequent philosophical debates in the Middle Ages and in the Modern Era. The fifteen essays collected in this book focus on the readings of Aristotle by Plotinus, Porphyry, and Iamblichus in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Their discussions cover key issues in the history of logic and metaphysics such as substance, hylomorphism, causation, existence, and (...) predication. Among the topics tackled in this volume are Plotinus' criticism of Aristotle's physical essentialism, which is a major chapter in the history of metaphysics, and the interpretation of Porphyry's Isagoge, one of the most influential and enigmatic works in the history of philosophy. Further essays focus on the readings of Aristotle's categories developed by Porphyry and Iamblichus, which raise interesting questions at the intersection of logic and ontology, and on the integration of Aristotle's ontology into Neoplatonist accounts of being and existence. (shrink)

This article focuses on the reception of Aristotle’s Categories by the first three representatives of Greek Neoplatonism: Plotinus (204/205–270 CE), Porphyry (ca. 234–ca. 305 CE), Iamblichus (ca. 242–ca. 325 CE). The first section argues that Plotinus’ acquaintance with Aristotle’s treatises marked a fresh start vis-à-vis the previous Platonist tradition. Aristotle’s views, arguments and vocabulary are ubiquitous in Plotinus writings (the Enneads) and they must be considered an essential part of his philosophical project. Plotinus, however, does not share some of Aristotle’s (...) key theories and is critical of them. The second section focuses on Plotinus’ discussion of Aristotle’s Categories in the tripartite treatise On the Genera of Being (6.1–3). There he rejects the Peripatetic division into ten categories as providing an incomplete account of the genera of being that unduly omits “those which are most authentically beings”, i.e. Plato’s separate Forms. While drawing on earlier Platonist objections to Aristotle, Plotinus’ approach is original insofar as he criticizes Aristotle and his followers not only for omitting intelligible beings in the division of categories, but also for being unable, for this very reason, to work out an adequate division of sensible beings themselves. The third section is devoted to Porphyry, a student of Plotinus’ and the editor of his works. Porphyry worked intensively on Aristotle’s Categories, which he regarded as an introduction not only to logic, but to philosophy as a whole. Unlike Plotinus, Porphyry aimed to integrate Aristotle into Platonism and his engagement with the Categories was a key part of his project after Plotinus’ in-depth criticism. Porphyry’s approach is connected to his view of the subject-matter of the Categories, which he sees as focusing on words insofar as they signify beings, and not on beings as such. The fourth section focuses on some parallels between Plotinus’ Genera of Beings and Porphyry’s works, which may reflect the debate within Plotinus’ school. The fifth section focuses on Iamblichus of Chalcis. Both in theology and in the interpretation of Aristotle’s Categories, Iamblichus aimed to both continue and supplant Porphyry’s work. While Plotinus criticizes Aristotle’s categories for omitting intelligible beings, and while Porphyry accepts Aristotle’s categories insofar as they focus on words signifying sensible things, Iamblichus incorporates his Neoplatonist and Pythagorizing metaphysics into the interpretation of the Categories. (shrink)

Anger is probably one of the mostly debated basic emotions, owing to difficulties in detecting its appearance during development, its functional and affective meaning (is it a positive or a negative emotion?), especially in human beings. Behaviors accompanied by anger and rage serve many different purposes and the nuances of aggressive behaviors are often defined by the symbolic and cultural framework and social contexts. Nonetheless, recent advances in neuroscientific and developmental research, as well as clinical psychodynamic investigation, afford a new (...) view on the role of anger in informing and guiding many aspects of human conducts. Developmental studies have confirmed the psychophysiological, cognitive and social acquisition that hesitate in the pre-determined sequence appearance of anger and rage in the first two years of life. The so-called affective neurosciences have shown the phylogenetic origin of the two circuits underlying the emergence of anger along with its evolutionary role for promoting survival. This view has been integrated by the psychodynamic theory of motivational systems that attribute a double role to anger: on the one hand, this affect works as an inwardly directed signal concerning a pressure to overcome an obstacle or an aversive situation; on the other hand, anger is also an outwardly directed communicative signal establishing differentiation and conflict within interpersonal relationships and affective bonds. Of course, human peculiar mental functioning requires the appraisal of such signals by higher cortical functions and, there is little doubt that the meaning that orientates individual behaviors is, eventually, construed on a social and cultural level. At the same time, everyday life experiences as well as clinical insights into psychopathic, narcissistic and borderline personality pathology clearly illustrate the necessity to correctly interpret and give answers to the basic questions raised around the topic of anger as a basic emotion. (shrink)

This book traces the genealogy of the Western political subject in major literary, philosophical, juridical and political texts.

This chapter focuses on Plotinus’ engagement with Aristotle’s hylomorphism against the wider background of Plotinus’ account of living beings. Plotinus’ general point throughout his writings is that, whatever one might think of the soul as an enmattered form, its status is not sufficiently distinct from that of the body and of its attributes. So Aristotle cannot ground his own distinction between body and soul, since the soul is an attribute among others and all attempts to make sense of its status (...) and of its causal role are doomed to fail. This chapter outlines Plotinus’ critical approach to Aristotle’s hylomorphism from the early treatise 4.7 through the treatises on the soul (4.3 and 4.4) down to the treatises 6.7 and 6.3, where Plotinus develops his own sophisticated theory of incorporeal forms. Particular attention is paid to the status of living bodies within Plotinus’ account of causation. (shrink)

This essay illustrates the main aspects of the discussion between Brentano and Stumpf about «tonal fusion». In his Tonpsychologie, Stumpf essentially moved from a Brentanian standpoint. Yet, he did not adopt Brentano’s subsequently developed new theory of «sensible qualities», so that a polemic eventually arouse between them. Far from representing a marginal issue, the episode is relevant to our understanding of their relationship. The discussion as to the mechanism of tonal fusion reveals a general divergence between Brentano and Stumpf concerning (...) the idea of human sensibility as a whole and of the method of psychology. (shrink)

The paper provides some introductory comments and a preliminary translation of Avicenna’s Burhān, IV, 2. I shall first set the stage by outlining the structure of the book (sec. 1). I will then briefly introduce (sec. 2) a number of notions that are dealt with in the first treatise of the Burhān (e.g. definition, description). Burhān, IV, 2 is split into two parts: the first focuses mainly on Aristotle’s An. Post., B, 4, whereas the second covers some of the topics (...) of B, 5 and B, 6. Accordingly, sec. 3 will be devoted to a cursory presentation of Aristotle’s arguments in An. Post., B, 4 along with a more detailed discussion of its Avicennan counterpart, focusing on the indemonstrability of definition; sec. 4, finally, will be a presentation of the second part of the chapter, concerning the relationship between definition and division. An English translation of the entire chapter is appended to the paper and is accompanied by some notes. (shrink)