让我们谈谈矛盾

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Revus Pub Date : 2018-12-10 DOI:10.4000/revus.4089
Alessio Sardo
{"title":"让我们谈谈矛盾","authors":"Alessio Sardo","doi":"10.4000/revus.4089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The author proposes new arguments in favor of Alchourron and Bulygin’s theory presented in Normative Systems (1971), by showing how even paradigmatic examples of instantiation conflicts can be reframed as antinomies between general cases. He proceeds as follows. After a brief reconstruction of Alchourron and Bulygin’s analysis of normative conflicts, he introduces the notion of instantiation conflict and shows how authors such as Riccardo Guastini, Jorge Rodriguez, Pablo Navarro and others rely on that notion for pointing out the existence of a “special” category of normative conflicts, which are necessarily bound to individual, actual cases and, therefore, fall out of the scope of Alchourron and Bulygin’s analysis. The author maintains that, should they be right, several fundamental assumptions of Alchourron and Bulygin’s theory might be seriously questioned. Against this background he argues that a reductionist approach is feasible and closes the paper by trying to save one of the main intuitions that inspired the instantiation conflicts argument.","PeriodicalId":38165,"journal":{"name":"Revus","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Let’s talk about antinomies\",\"authors\":\"Alessio Sardo\",\"doi\":\"10.4000/revus.4089\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The author proposes new arguments in favor of Alchourron and Bulygin’s theory presented in Normative Systems (1971), by showing how even paradigmatic examples of instantiation conflicts can be reframed as antinomies between general cases. He proceeds as follows. After a brief reconstruction of Alchourron and Bulygin’s analysis of normative conflicts, he introduces the notion of instantiation conflict and shows how authors such as Riccardo Guastini, Jorge Rodriguez, Pablo Navarro and others rely on that notion for pointing out the existence of a “special” category of normative conflicts, which are necessarily bound to individual, actual cases and, therefore, fall out of the scope of Alchourron and Bulygin’s analysis. The author maintains that, should they be right, several fundamental assumptions of Alchourron and Bulygin’s theory might be seriously questioned. Against this background he argues that a reductionist approach is feasible and closes the paper by trying to save one of the main intuitions that inspired the instantiation conflicts argument.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38165,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revus\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4000/revus.4089\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4000/revus.4089","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

作者提出了新的论点,支持Alchourron和Bulygin在规范系统(1971)中提出的理论,通过展示实例化冲突的范例如何被重新定义为一般情况之间的二律反。他是这样做的。在对Alchourron和Bulygin对规范性冲突的分析进行了简要的重建之后,他引入了实例化冲突的概念,并展示了Riccardo Guastini、Jorge Rodriguez、Pablo Navarro等作者是如何依靠这一概念来指出“特殊”类别的规范性冲突的存在的,这些冲突必然与个人的实际案例相联系,因此,不在Alchourron和Bulygin的分析范围之内。作者认为,如果他们是正确的,那么Alchourron和Bulygin理论的几个基本假设可能会受到严重质疑。在这种背景下,他认为还原论的方法是可行的,并试图挽救启发实例化冲突论证的主要直觉之一来结束论文。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Let’s talk about antinomies
The author proposes new arguments in favor of Alchourron and Bulygin’s theory presented in Normative Systems (1971), by showing how even paradigmatic examples of instantiation conflicts can be reframed as antinomies between general cases. He proceeds as follows. After a brief reconstruction of Alchourron and Bulygin’s analysis of normative conflicts, he introduces the notion of instantiation conflict and shows how authors such as Riccardo Guastini, Jorge Rodriguez, Pablo Navarro and others rely on that notion for pointing out the existence of a “special” category of normative conflicts, which are necessarily bound to individual, actual cases and, therefore, fall out of the scope of Alchourron and Bulygin’s analysis. The author maintains that, should they be right, several fundamental assumptions of Alchourron and Bulygin’s theory might be seriously questioned. Against this background he argues that a reductionist approach is feasible and closes the paper by trying to save one of the main intuitions that inspired the instantiation conflicts argument.
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
Revus
Revus Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信