2021年2月9日
Law在日常用語及analytic jurisprudence中每多歧義,易生枝蔓,易惹是非,牛頭不對馬嘴,更足供無知無畏者有的放矢無的放矢。
Himma書卷首自要釐清一二,挑一個全書用得着的working definition「...the concept-term law...is ambiguous between a wide usage and a narrow usage. The wide usage includes not only the legal system that define municipal and international entities but also systems of religious laws that define institutional membership...」Himma選擇在書上說的「法」是law的narrow sense,即「only those systems of international and municipal law.」
Himma因全書的context鮮明,故只說man-made law,沒有語及law of nature的「Law」。
從前在學院中不知死活,學人念philosophy of science,裏邊自有說及古典和現代物理學上的law,但原來自David Hume以來,現代科學哲學家也不曾稍稍放過他們對law的理解和詮釋,是以在科學上law也不是純粹自然的傑作,卻是人間的各種intellectual constructions。那時我們在班上要念念David Armstrong的What is a Law of Nature?,Armstrong對law of nature的定義其實是芸芸理論中的又一款analytic philosophy的表述,漂漂亮亮,我未必懂得隨心所欲的運用,但還可以恭錄下來一起美文共賞:Suppose it to be a law that Fs are Gs. F-ness and G-ness are taken to be universals. A certain relation, a relation of non-logical or contingent necessitation, holds between F-ness and G-ness. This state of affairs may be symbolized as「N(F,G)」
虛心細心讀law(in whatever sense)便如月下幸運遇上俏佳人,又麻煩又美麗。
訂戶登入