{"title":"Contra Iurem","authors":"Laurent de Sutter","doi":"10.5422/FORDHAM/9780823283798.003.0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Giorgio Agamben’s celebrated research in the field of legal ontology has led him to devise a distinction between an ontology of being and an ontology of command—two traditions he divided that Western philosophy has always presented as united. But, behind this division and the supersedence of one ontology over the other, Agamben has himself fallen into the trap he wanted to avoid and actually given back to philosophy what it wanted to take from law but had always been a part of philosophy. Another path should be chosen: a path away from “being” as well as “ought-to-be”—the path of maybe. This is what this chapter will argue.","PeriodicalId":111677,"journal":{"name":"Administering Interpretation","volume":"61 2","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/9780823283798.003.0010","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

阿甘本(Giorgio Agamben)在法律本体论领域的著名研究,使他在存在本体论和命令本体论之间做出了区分,他将这两种传统区分开来,而西方哲学总是把这两种传统视为统一的。但是,在这种划分和一种本体论对另一种本体论的取代背后,阿甘本自己陷入了他想避免的陷阱,实际上,他把哲学想从法律中获得的东西还给了哲学,而这些东西一直是哲学的一部分。我们应该选择另一条道路:一条远离“存在”和“应该成为”的道路——一条可能的道路。这就是本章要讨论的。
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
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Contra Iurem
Giorgio Agamben’s celebrated research in the field of legal ontology has led him to devise a distinction between an ontology of being and an ontology of command—two traditions he divided that Western philosophy has always presented as united. But, behind this division and the supersedence of one ontology over the other, Agamben has himself fallen into the trap he wanted to avoid and actually given back to philosophy what it wanted to take from law but had always been a part of philosophy. Another path should be chosen: a path away from “being” as well as “ought-to-be”—the path of maybe. This is what this chapter will argue.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
11. A Ghost Story: Electoral Reform and Hong Kong Popular Theater Frontmatter 6. Derrida’s Legal Times: Decision, Declaration, Deferral, and Event 7. Derrida’s Shylock: The Letter and the Life of Law 1. Interpretations as Hypotheses
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1