{"title":"为什么普通法理学有趣","authors":"J. Dickson","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2921820","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"espanolEn un articulo reciente titulado “Is General Jurisprudence Interesting?”, David Enoch responde su propia pregunta de forma sonoramente negativa. Este articulo examina criticamente la naturaleza de la afirmacion de Enoch, las presuposiciones sobre las que descansa y la manera en la que intenta mostrar que tal es el caso. Habiendo arguido que muchas de las visiones al respecto dependen de un entendimiento pobre e idiosincrasico de las cuestiones de las que se ocupa la teoria general del derecho, asi como de las relaciones entre esas cuestiones y muchas otras investigaciones acerca de la naturaleza del derecho, el articulo concluye ofreciendo la propia version de la autora acerca de aquello que hace de la teoria general del derecho algo intrigante, cautivador y. . . tambien. . . interesante. EnglishIn a recent article entitled, “Is General Jurisprudence Interesting?”, David Enoch answers his own question resoundingly in the negative. This article critically examines the character of Enoch’s claim, the presuppositions it rests on, and the way in which he seeks to establish it. Having argued that many of Enoch’s views in this regard hinge on a narrow and idiosyncratic understanding of the questions that general jurisprudence addresses, and of the relations between those questions and many other inquiries concerning the character of law, the article concludes by offering its author’s own vision of what makes general jurisprudence engaging, intriguing, and. . . well. . . interesting.","PeriodicalId":43820,"journal":{"name":"CRITICA-REVISTA HISPANOAMERICANA DE FILOSOFIA","volume":"46 1","pages":"11-39"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2017-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why General Jurisprudence Is Interesting\",\"authors\":\"J. Dickson\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2921820\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"espanolEn un articulo reciente titulado “Is General Jurisprudence Interesting?”, David Enoch responde su propia pregunta de forma sonoramente negativa. Este articulo examina criticamente la naturaleza de la afirmacion de Enoch, las presuposiciones sobre las que descansa y la manera en la que intenta mostrar que tal es el caso. Habiendo arguido que muchas de las visiones al respecto dependen de un entendimiento pobre e idiosincrasico de las cuestiones de las que se ocupa la teoria general del derecho, asi como de las relaciones entre esas cuestiones y muchas otras investigaciones acerca de la naturaleza del derecho, el articulo concluye ofreciendo la propia version de la autora acerca de aquello que hace de la teoria general del derecho algo intrigante, cautivador y. . . tambien. . . interesante. EnglishIn a recent article entitled, “Is General Jurisprudence Interesting?”, David Enoch answers his own question resoundingly in the negative. This article critically examines the character of Enoch’s claim, the presuppositions it rests on, and the way in which he seeks to establish it. Having argued that many of Enoch’s views in this regard hinge on a narrow and idiosyncratic understanding of the questions that general jurisprudence addresses, and of the relations between those questions and many other inquiries concerning the character of law, the article concludes by offering its author’s own vision of what makes general jurisprudence engaging, intriguing, and. . . well. . . interesting.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43820,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CRITICA-REVISTA HISPANOAMERICANA DE FILOSOFIA\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"11-39\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-02-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CRITICA-REVISTA HISPANOAMERICANA DE FILOSOFIA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2921820\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CRITICA-REVISTA HISPANOAMERICANA DE FILOSOFIA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2921820","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
最近一篇题为“一般法理学感兴趣吗?”大卫·以诺以一种明显否定的方式回答了自己的问题。以诺在《创世纪》第1章第2节中说:“神的儿子以诺是神的儿子,神的儿子以诺是神的儿子。”arguido了许多幻想就此取决于一个可怜的谅解和idiosincrasico问题涉及权利的一般理论,就是关系这些问题和许多其他权利的性质,这篇文章对研究结论提供的封面,提交人关于这一些引人注目的法的一般理论前,迷人的和。。。还有……有趣的。EnglishIn总最近entitled条,“Is Interesting编辑部吗?= =地理= =根据美国人口普查,该镇的土地面积为。这篇文章批判性地审视了以诺的主张的特征,它的前提,以及它试图建立它的方式。已经argued that许多《Enoch views有鉴于此,hinge on a narrow and idiosyncratic understanding of the一般问题that it, and of the relations between编辑部的那些问题和许多其他调查关于查阅of law, the条在文末by offering its own vision of what提交人曾参与编辑部intriguing,将军。。。嗯……interesting。
espanolEn un articulo reciente titulado “Is General Jurisprudence Interesting?”, David Enoch responde su propia pregunta de forma sonoramente negativa. Este articulo examina criticamente la naturaleza de la afirmacion de Enoch, las presuposiciones sobre las que descansa y la manera en la que intenta mostrar que tal es el caso. Habiendo arguido que muchas de las visiones al respecto dependen de un entendimiento pobre e idiosincrasico de las cuestiones de las que se ocupa la teoria general del derecho, asi como de las relaciones entre esas cuestiones y muchas otras investigaciones acerca de la naturaleza del derecho, el articulo concluye ofreciendo la propia version de la autora acerca de aquello que hace de la teoria general del derecho algo intrigante, cautivador y. . . tambien. . . interesante. EnglishIn a recent article entitled, “Is General Jurisprudence Interesting?”, David Enoch answers his own question resoundingly in the negative. This article critically examines the character of Enoch’s claim, the presuppositions it rests on, and the way in which he seeks to establish it. Having argued that many of Enoch’s views in this regard hinge on a narrow and idiosyncratic understanding of the questions that general jurisprudence addresses, and of the relations between those questions and many other inquiries concerning the character of law, the article concludes by offering its author’s own vision of what makes general jurisprudence engaging, intriguing, and. . . well. . . interesting.