關於這本電子書
This lively book reassesses a century of jurisprudential thought from a fresh perspective, and points to a malaise that currently afflicts not only legal theory but law in general. Steven Smith argues that our legal vocabulary and methods of reasoning presuppose classical ontological commitments that were explicitly articulated by thinkers from Aquinas to Coke to Blackstone, and even by Joseph Story. But these commitments are out of sync with the world view that prevails today in academic and professional thinking. So our law-talk thus degenerates into "just words"--or a kind of nonsense.
The diagnosis is similar to that offered by Holmes, the Legal Realists, and other critics over the past century, except that these critics assumed that the older ontological commitments were dead, or at least on their way to extinction; so their aim was to purge legal discourse of what they saw as an archaic and fading metaphysics. Smith's argument starts with essentially the same metaphysical predicament but moves in the opposite direction. Instead of avoiding or marginalizing the "ultimate questions," he argues that we need to face up to them and consider their implications for law.
The diagnosis is similar to that offered by Holmes, the Legal Realists, and other critics over the past century, except that these critics assumed that the older ontological commitments were dead, or at least on their way to extinction; so their aim was to purge legal discourse of what they saw as an archaic and fading metaphysics. Smith's argument starts with essentially the same metaphysical predicament but moves in the opposite direction. Instead of avoiding or marginalizing the "ultimate questions," he argues that we need to face up to them and consider their implications for law.
關於作者
Steven D. Smith is Warren Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of San Diego.
為這本電子書評分
請分享你的寶貴意見。
閱讀資訊
智能手機和平板電腦
手提電腦和電腦
你可以使用電腦的網絡瀏覽器聆聽在 Google Play 上購買的有聲書。
電子書閱讀器及其他裝置
如要在 Kobo 等電子墨水裝置上閱覽書籍，你需要下載檔案並傳輸到你的裝置。請按照說明中心的詳細指示，將檔案傳輸到支援的電子書閱讀器。
