安东宁·斯卡利亚，伯恩哈德·施林克和兰斯洛特·安德鲁斯

Administering Interpretation Pub Date : 2019-05-21 DOI:10.5422/FORDHAM/9780823283798.003.0003

S. Fish

{"title":"安东宁·斯卡利亚，伯恩哈德·施林克和兰斯洛特·安德鲁斯","authors":"S. Fish","doi":"10.5422/FORDHAM/9780823283798.003.0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Addressing textualism in its various manifestations, this chapter argues, in critique of Schlink and Scalia, that genuine interpretation is governed by the attempt to determine the author’s intention. Examining Scalia’s divergence from this hermeneutic norm, Fish argues not only that his theory as exemplified in Heller is bad, but also that as an interpretative practice, it is evil.","PeriodicalId":111677,"journal":{"name":"Administering Interpretation","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Antonin Scalia, Bernhard Schlink, and Lancelot Andrewes\",\"authors\":\"S. Fish\",\"doi\":\"10.5422/FORDHAM/9780823283798.003.0003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Addressing textualism in its various manifestations, this chapter argues, in critique of Schlink and Scalia, that genuine interpretation is governed by the attempt to determine the author’s intention. Examining Scalia’s divergence from this hermeneutic norm, Fish argues not only that his theory as exemplified in Heller is bad, but also that as an interpretative practice, it is evil.\",\"PeriodicalId\":111677,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Administering Interpretation\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Administering Interpretation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5422/FORDHAM/9780823283798.003.0003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administering Interpretation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5422/FORDHAM/9780823283798.003.0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

本章在对施林克和斯卡利亚的批判中，论述了文本主义的各种表现形式，认为真正的解释是由确定作者意图的尝试所支配的。在考察斯卡利亚与这一解释学规范的分歧时，费什认为，他在海勒案中所体现的理论不仅是坏的，而且作为一种解释学实践，它也是邪恶的。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Antonin Scalia, Bernhard Schlink, and Lancelot Andrewes

Addressing textualism in its various manifestations, this chapter argues, in critique of Schlink and Scalia, that genuine interpretation is governed by the attempt to determine the author’s intention. Examining Scalia’s divergence from this hermeneutic norm, Fish argues not only that his theory as exemplified in Heller is bad, but also that as an interpretative practice, it is evil.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Administering Interpretation

自引率

0.00%

发文量