H e r m e n e V t I k a in humanistika II
Yüklə 3,96 Mb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
316 P HAINOMENA 14/53–54
I ZVLE
~ KI – A BSTRACTS tualnega dela, ki obsega specifi~ni nauk o interpretaciji pravih besedil. Glavni teoretski sogovornik Dworkinu je pravni pozitivizem, ki ga podvr`e funda- mentalni kritiki. Za razliko od najbolj raz{irjenega zavra~anja pozitivizma, ki mu o~ita izlo~itev morale iz interesa pravne znanosti, je Dworkinov napad povsem teoretski. Ugotavlja, da pozitivizem ni sposoben spo{tovati svojih lastnih zahtev. Kot alternativo Dworkin osnuje posebno vrsto interpretacije, ki gradi na spoznanju, da pravna besedila ne morejo vsebovati celotne pomenskosti, ki je potrebna za uporabo prava. Zapisani »polovici« prava je treba vselej dodati nezapisano »polovico«. Instrumenti interpretacije, ki jih vpelje pa skrbijo, da je dodana pomenskost izbrana pravilno. To zagotavlja, da zavrnitev objektivisti~nih me- tod v pravu ne vodi v hermenevti~ni relativizem.
Rok Svetli~: Legal Hermeneutics of Ronald Dworkin and the Unwritten »Half« of the Law Dworkin’s philosophy of law consists of two parts: conceptual and normative. The article attempts to bring forth the basic gestures of the conceptual part, aiming at a specific doctrine on the interpretation of legal texts. The chief addressee of Dworkin is legal positivism, which falls under severe critical examination. In contrast to the widely spread rejection of positivism, which reproaches it for its exclusion of morals from the interest of legal science, Dworkin’s assault is purely theoretical. He argues that positivism is incapable of taking account of its own pretensions. As an alternative, Dworkin establishes a special kind of interpretation starting from the basic premise that legal texts cannot comprise the whole meaning necessary for legal application. The written “half” of the law is always accom- panied by its unwritten “half”. The instruments of interpretation introduced, however, procure the correct choice of the added meaning. This eventually provides the rejection of objectivist methods with a successful avoidance of hermeneutic relativism. Key words: R. Dworkin, Hermeneutics, philosophy of law, legal positivism * * * IZVLECKI.pmd 19.1.2006, 8:46 316
317 I ZVLE ~ KI – A BSTRACTS Charles Taylor: Dve teoriji modernosti Pri~ujo~i prispevek izpostavlja razliko med dvema nasprotujo~ima si teorijama modernosti: kulturno in akulturno teorijo. Prva pripoznava, da moderna znanost in tehnologija kakor tudi moderna dru`bena organizacija temeljijo na dolo~enih sklopih vrednot. Slednja – prevladujo~a – prikazuje proces zatona tradicionalne dru`be in njeno nadomestitev z nevtralnim, »naravnim« redom. Tako naj bi bil moralni individualizem denimo naravni na~in obna{anja po sesutju mitov in zablod anti~nih ~asov. Avtor izpostavlja iluzornost domnev te teorije in njenih negativnih u~inkov in predlaga bolj raznoliko, pluralisti~no pojmovanje mo- dernosti v razli~nih predelih sveta.
Charles Taylor: Two Theories of Modernity This article distinguishes two opposed theories of modernity : the cultural and the acultural theory. The former admits that modern science and technology as well as modern social organization are based on determined set of values. The latter – which is the dominant one – pictures the process of the demise of traditional society and its replacement by a neutral,”natural” order. Thus, mo- dern individualism, for example, is assumed to be a natural way to behave once the myth and error of the ancient times have been dissipated.The author points out the illusory assumptions of this theory and its negative effects, suggesting notably a more diverse, pluralistic conception of modernity in the different parts of the world. Keywords: modernity, culture, individualism, morals * * * Ugo Vlaisavljevi}: Komunisti~na politika, dru`boslovje in humanistika Domneva, da lahko univerza pripomore k »tranziciji« – v dru`benih, politi~nih in gospodarskih procesih, ki potekajo izven nje – v na{em razumevanju aktual- nih dru`benih razmer ponavadi vzpostavlja to institucijo kot trdno, ~e `e ne nepremakljivo oporo pomembnih sprememb. To ne pomeni, da se ne bi morala tudi univerza sama podvre~i dinamiki tranzicije. Vodstvo sarajevske univerze, IZVLECKI.pmd 19.1.2006, 8:46 317
318 P HAINOMENA 14/53–54
I ZVLE
~ KI – A BSTRACTS tako kot vseh drugih v regiji, se docela zaveda potrebe po reformi visokega izobra`evanja in se ukvarja z njo. Toda zdi se, da je v zavesti reformatorjev zasidran dolo~en model univerze, ki `e vnaprej omejuje domet reform in pre- pre~uje tak{no preobrazbo univerze, v kateri bi ta lahko postala pomembna institucija demokrati~ne dru`be. Nesprejemljivosti tega modela ne moremo dojeti, ~e se ne ozremo nazaj v zgodovino, saj je plod ideologije prej{njega re`ima, natan~neje re~eno: njegove politi~ne epistemologije. Gre za ideolo{ko interpretacijo vednosti in znanosti na temelju razdelitve ~love{ke realnosti na podro~je teorije in podro~je prakse, pri ~emer je imela slednja absolutno prven- stvo pred prvo.
Ugo Vlaisavljevi}: Communist Politics, Social Sciences and Humanities The social sciences and humanities have still to acquire their proper social form in post-Communist societies. When a pure theoretical, ,impractical‘, ,ste- rile ‘ school practice is publicly misrepresented as an exemplary social practice of open debate and questioning, then the path is established for a pseudo- scientific ideology. This kind of ideology becomes dominant from the moment that an ,internal socialisation‘ within communities of scholars is mistaken for an ,external socialisation‘ in political forums. It is true that even today the first and basic socialization of university teachers in the social sciences and hu- manities takes place in political institutions of the state. Their belief in the practical character of their knowledge, confirmed by their fascinating expe- rience of communicative practices in these institutions, gives them an illusion of participating in a genuine community. The curious fact that scholars them- selves have brought the dominant political ideology into the field of their know- ledge and expertise is to be explained by this lack of independent commu- nicative practice. The true democratisation of post-Communist regimes requi- res the profound transformation of both the school-like practice of universities and the pseudo-scientific practice of political forums. Only a re-socialisation of all of the institutions inhabited by the social sciences and humanities will bring to an end ,scientific ideologies‘.
* * * IZVLECKI.pmd 19.1.2006, 8:46 318
Yüklə 3,96 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|