Análisis Filosófico 33 (1):11-29 (2013)

Authors
Abstract
En este trabajo confrontamos la posición de Bulygin acerca de las normas con la del escéptico semántico y la del incorporacionista. entendemos a ambas figuras como expresiones -matizadas- de dos enfoques generales respecto del comportamiento en base a reglas: a) el que no ve en este más que "decisiones arbitrarias", meras reacciones o hábitos de conducta, y b) el que asimila la explicación de lo normativo con el ajuste a reglas o principios. Ahora bien, la noción general de Bulygin que concibe a las normas como proposiciones o entidades conceptuales, parece -paradójicamente- rozar el escepticismo cuando se enfrenta a la imposibilidad de listar en forma completa las excepciones implícitas en la formulación de una regla. Proponemos una concepción alternativa basada en la noción de que el significado se muestra en el "uso", entendido este como el dominio de una técnica que constituye una "práctica social", en la cual reside un tipo de corrección práctica que no depende de justificaciones explícitas, sino de un trasfondo no expreso que hace irreductible a una teoría la aplicación de normas jurídicas. We contrast Bulygin's position on rules against that of the semantic skeptic and the inclusionist. We understand these two positions as in some sense expressing two general approaches on behavior according to rules: a) the first one stating that ruled behavior is no more than "arbitrary decisions," mere reactions or behavioral habits, and b) the second one explaining everything normative as actions adjusted to rules or principles. Bulygin's general notion according to which rules are propositions or conceptual entities paradoxically seems to be close to a skeptic position when facing the impossibility of completely listing implicit exceptions when formulating a rule. We propose an alternative conception based on the notion that meaning is shown in use, understanding by "use" the mastering of a technique that constitutes a social practice, in which resides a sort of correction practice. This correction does not depend on explicit justifications but on an unexpressed background which makes impossible a theory of legal application of rules
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 52,956
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Making It Explicit.Isaac Levi & Robert B. Brandom - 1996 - Journal of Philosophy 93 (3):145.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-02-25

Total views
5 ( #1,105,684 of 2,343,714 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #514,299 of 2,343,714 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes