Jiao Baogan's executive summary logic and rhetoric are two elements of the legal method, and are an important crystallization of human judicial civilization. They should be promoted to the height of the "paradigm" for research. Western law (study) has traditionally been dominated by the logic paradigm, to the revival of the contemporary rhetorical paradigm, through some major theoretical changes, and caused an important shift in legal thinking. The two paradigms of logic and rhetoric have experienced a more complicated game process in the history of Western methodology, and finally they have gained legitimacy in contemporary jurisprudence. The logic and rhetorical paradigm in the context of Chinese jurisprudence is different from that in the West. In the process of governing the country according to law, it is necessary to properly handle the relationship between logic and rhetoric.
The pen of the legal person should always take reason, judge the right and wrong according to law, and realize justice according to law. 1 Legal thinking pursues the accuracy of definition and the rigor of judgment, and is committed to eliminating all accidents and assumptions, and to abandon self-righteousness. Therefore, the law is extremely logical. At the same time, in Western countries, from ancient Greece to today's United States, it has always been the eloquence of jurisprudence. The lawyers of both sides, such as the speaker, have heated debates on the legal, rational and ethical issues of a certain focus. 2 In fact, the close relationship between law and rhetoric is no less than the connection between law and logic.
However, the two elements of seemingly opposite logic and rhetoric can coexist in the law. If so, how can they be professors at Shandong University (Weihai) Law School? This article is the 2011 research results of the Judicial Civilization Collaborative Innovation Center.
See Wang Zejian: Examples of Legal Thinking and Civil Law, China University of Political Science and Law Press, 2001, p. 302.
Going to the Yuan: Court: He has seen eloquent, http://xhw99.fyfz.cn/b/829780, last visit time: October 13, 2014, currently, the domestic academic circles on logic and rhetoric, and even from The research results of the relationship between the two are rare in law, but the problem is quite valuable. There have been many jurists who have been solving the answer to this question, but they have been arrogant and disagreeable. Different from previous studies, this paper attempts to treat logic and rhetoric as a "paradigm" of legal research. Therefore, we need to first explore the possibility of applying ''paradigm' theory and method in the field of law.
According to Kuhn's interpretation of the structure of the scientific revolution, every major breakthrough in scientific research is almost always breaking the Taoism, breaking the old thinking, and then succeeding = paradigm "in the final analysis is a theoretical system, a breakthrough in paradigm Leading to the scientific revolution, so that science can gain a new look. And if a stable paradigm can not provide the appropriate way to solve the problem, it will become weaker and thus paradigm shift. Moreover, the "paradigm" often belongs to the same science. The community is similar to the "paradigm" and Weber's "ideal~type" in social science research. However, for the convenience of narrative, the term ''paradigm' is used here. The concept and theory of "paradigm" not only causes strong discussion and recognition among natural scientists, but also is highly valued and used by social scientists. The paradigm theory proposed by En has been studied a lot, but I want to focus on the application of paradigm theory in the field of law.
Kuhn's paradigm theory has been used many times in both foreign 4 and domestic legal circles. Relevant researches in the domestic legal circles, such as Professor Zhang Wenxian and other proposals from the "class struggle" paradigm to the "right-based" legal philosophy research paradigm, the post-modern law research paradigm, the paradigm of legislation and judicial centralism, the law and economic paradigm ;5 There is also Professor Su Li's research paradigm on contemporary Chinese jurisprudence, which uses the three paradigms of political law, interpretative law and social science law to describe Chinese contemporary legal studies. In addition, in the constitutional law, administrative law, civil law, criminal law and environmental law, see Zhang Wenxian: Research on the Category of Legal Philosophy, China University of Political Science and Law Press, 2001, Chapter 13; Zhang Wenxian, Yu Ning: Research on Contemporary Chinese Legal Philosophy Feng Yujun: Law and Economics Paradigm, Tsinghua University Press, 2009; Wang Yuyu: Rural Financial Legal System Reform and Innovation: Based on the influence of law and economics. For example, the seminar on "Law and Methods in Multidisciplinary Background" held in Beijing on May 24, 2014, and the "Dialogue of Social Science Law and Legal Teaching" held in Wuhan on May 31 and June 1. Academic seminars, as well as some young scholars' research on social science law and doctrine law, have gradually increased in recent years.
The application of paradigm theory can be seen in the field of law. 7 Of course, in many studies, there is no lack of opposition. Some scholars believe that the "paradigm" method applicable to the natural sciences is used to analyze the theoretical problems of the development of China's administrative law, and the development of administrative law is regarded as a "revolutionary" process. This "administrative paradigm shift theory" appears too Sloppy and hasty. 8 Thus, some commentators pointed out that this research method is not appropriate. However, the domestic jurisprudence often uses a certain affirmative or even unskeptical position on the application of paradigm theory in the field of jurisprudence.
The academic community also has a legal method term as a research paradigm. If some people regard reasoning and interpretation as a paradigm, they believe that the development of contemporary judicial technology reveals the contradiction between two different technical paradigms characterized by reasoning and interpretation. The judicial reasoning paradigm derived from the Western scientism paradigm has its own ''dead knot' that is difficult to open. It will be replaced by the interpretation paradigm. 9 There will be a "legal interpretation" and a law application as a paradigm. In this regard, it will be '' Logic" and "rhetoric"
Such a legal method term is a research paradigm and is not the first of its kind. The various jurisprudence and departmental jurisprudence that has emerged in China's jurisprudence in recent years are facing how to transform: how to develop in the future and how to improve. These major issues have begun to cause serious thinking by scholars. Of course, in the existing research, I am afraid that the abuse and even misuse of the ''paradigm' may not be ruled out, but this theoretical exploration and attempt is still worthy of recognition. It should be noted that the academic research on the research paradigm must not become Scholars' individual theoretical ideas or empty academic slogans should form an academic academic paradigm through the overall penetration of the field of law and through continuous academic debate.
As far as the subject matter of this paper is concerned, whether logic and rhetoric can become research paradigms, this theoretical intention may also have certain risks. For example, some German scholars believe that "until today, legal rhetoric has not yet obtained a unified scientific paradigm. It has not been able to eliminate doubts about its scientific use. Because it has not exceeded the level of the workbook in some cases." Although it is "legal rhetoric", it also contains doubts about the possibility of "rhetoric" as a paradigm to be explored in this article. However, it should be noted that the original meaning of this quotation is that legal rhetoric is a change of the emerging legal research paradigm, edited by Jiang Ming'an: Administrative Law (11), Law Press, 2008 edition; Li Haiping: Administration in the postmodern context The paradigm shift of law is toward the reflective administrative law, Law Press, 2005 edition; Shi Youqi: On the paradigm shift of public administration and administrative law, Peking University Press, 2003 edition. The study of civil law, such as Fan Xuefei: the initial succession of the paradigm of thinking, Law Press, 2012 edition; Lu Qing: On civil law research, see Feng Wensheng: Reasoning and Interpretation, Civil Judicial Technology Paradigm Research, Law Press, 2005 edition.
For example, Jiang Fudong: A paradigm critic of legal interpretation, Shandong People's Publishing House, 2010 edition; Wang Bin, Liu Jincai: On the paradigm shift of legal interpretation, the Judicial Theory and Judicial Method of the Hainan Great Law Law Forum (Zhang Wei, August 2014); Zhu Good: Research on the affiliation technology paradigm of the applicable type of law, 2007 Ph.D Thesis of Shandong University.
Okind Kroisbauer: Introduction to the History of Legal Argumentation Theory, translated by Zhang Qingbo, edited by Zheng Yongliu: Law Philosophy and Legal Sociology (15), Peking University Press, 2010, p. 15.
The frontier research field needs to be vigorously developed, so "this principle is very important and a new beginning is urgently needed." And this does not seem to hinder "rhetoric" as a paradigm of legal research. Especially in the West "Rhetoric"
The meta-theory narrative with "logic" has been born in ancient Greece and has always influenced the later generations.
What is now called "logic" is called "analysis" in Aristotle. And in ancient times, at least in some cases the word "logic" was used as a synonym for "dialectic". But in Aristotle, the term "the dialectic" is used, and the term "dialect" is directly related to 'discourse,' a "dialogue." A more rigorous definition of these two words can be found in Aristotle's work. He believes that logic and analysis can draw true conclusions, and that dialectics can only be used as a tool to draw conclusions that can be considered correct. Aristotle sees dialectics, rhetoric, and topicalism as essentially different from logic because they constitute the means of convincing the opponent rather than establishing truth in the discussion. In ancient times, although logic and dialectics had a certain relationship in name, they belonged to two different disciplines. In fact, dialectics is closer in nature to rhetoric. Rhetoric is a way of persuasion through discourse rather than through truth. It can be seen that in Western academic traditions, disciplines such as dialectic and rhetoric, which are based on discourse, are fundamentally different from logic.
Therefore, the paradigm of logic and rhetoric to be studied in this paper can be traced back to the rhetoric of Aristotle in ancient Greece. When Aristotle built his own rhetorical theory, he always wanted to clarify the difference between his theory and the debate and Plato. This actually laid the groundwork for the distinction between logic and rhetorical paradigm. Unlike the sophistication, Aristotle sees rhetoric as a study of how to find persuasive ideas and methods, rather than a study of practical speaking skills as previously thought. Plato's rhetoric in the works of Gorkya and Federus as the "correspondence of cooking" is merely synonymous with eloquence. Aristotle believes that "rhetoric is the counterpart of dialectics", intended to respond to Plato's censure of rhetoric, trying to position rhetoric with appropriate disciplines, thus establishing a connection between rhetoric and dialectics and logic. He said in the rhetoric book: "The speaker should be able to make logical inferences, analyze the character and virtues of the person, and analyze the human emotions and the causes and ways of generating emotions. Therefore, rhetoric is actually an argument. The branch of ethics is also a branch of ethics, and ethics should be called political science." Therefore, rhetorical art does not only include grammar and logic training, it requires research ethics and psychology, especially knowledge about human personality types and about Passionate knowledge. From a modern perspective, Aristotle made a certain correlation with the knowledge of rhetoric and logic. In fact, it has laid a complicated relationship between logic and rhetoric in the Western academic source. .
In the field of law, this complex relationship between logic and rhetoric is also obvious: legal and legal activities must be logical, but often need to pay attention to rhetoric; although it can be said simply, the relationship between logic and rhetoric in law is extremely advanced. Quote, Jingte Croix Bowen, p. 15.
complex. In the operation of laws in various countries, logic and rhetoric are two elements of concern. In the study of legal methods, logic and rhetoric are also the elements of legal methods that are often discussed. In view of this, the research in this paper will focus on the ''logical' and the use of the subject of "logic" and "rhetoric" where necessary.
Kuhn used to be troubled by the fact that the paradigm was endowed with many meanings. To avoid confusion, he would prefer to use another word, the "disciplinary matrix": "the term "discipline" is used because it refers to a specialized discipline. The property shared by workers; the use of 'matrix words because it consists of various ordered elements.' The paradigm has both methodological and epistemological significance. Introducing law can make it easier for people to grasp the methodology of law methodology in general. The overall trend of development. Taking logic and rhetoric as the research paradigm or ''subject matrix'), it is convenient for people to describe and reveal the overall changes of legal ideas in history. Using the "paradigm" theory and method borrowed from the philosophy of science, we can integrate the theoretical claims of the schools of law in different regions of the same period. Therefore, the research paradigm of ''logical' and 'rhetoric' can be formed for the study of Western methodologists around the ''logical') and regions and different eras.
The discussion in this paper is actually biased. The focus is to cut the study of ''logical' and 'rhetoric' into the Western context, and to examine the logic and rhetorical paradigm that governs Western law (study), or to logic With rhetoric as the main line, a macro-level overview of Western legal traditions and legal history. This kind of in-depth exploration and combing will provide the necessary theoretical background for the discussion of this topic. After that, this article will be ''logic') Discuss with "Rhetoric" in the context of China. This pair of paradigms has a specific legal and cultural meaning different from the West in this context. But whether in the West or in China, "logic" and "rhetoric" can all become a theoretical paradigm worth studying. Generally speaking, "logic" and "rhetoric" are important crystallizations of human judicial civilization. This paper promotes it to the height of "paradigm" and gives a summary discussion in different contexts between China and the West.
Second, the close connection between Western law and rhetoric: a forgotten tradition, if traced from the source, Western law and legal tradition are closely related to rhetoric. For example, Wittenberger of Germany talks about the close connection between law and rhetoric. In ancient times, people have regarded law as a rhetorical subject. Levi and others in the United States believe that law is synonymous with contemporary rhetoric. This root is now called forensic rhetoric. And in ancient times, learning law and learning rhetoric were parallel. In Cassiodor's view, the connection between grammar learning, rhetorical learning and legal learning is self-evident; Isidorvon (Isidorvon): The Structure of the Scientific Revolution, Jin Wulun, Hu Xinhe , Peking University Press, 2003, p. 163.
See De Thomas Wittenberger: The Late Development of Legal Methodology, translated by Zhang Qingbo, edited by Zheng Yongliu: Legal Philosophy and Legal Sociology (8), Peking University Press, 2005, p. 18.
See Merlin Levy, Sanders: Thinking like a rhetoric, translated by Liu Bing, edited by Ge Hongyi: Legal Methods and Legal Thinking (6), Law Press, 2010, p. 199.
Sevilla) simply refers to rhetoric as the scientiaiurisperitorum. It can be seen that whether it is law and rhetoric in the disciplines, or legal education and rhetoric education, they all have very close ties in the ancient West, although it may be unbelievable from today.
From the origin of rhetoric, rhetoric was originally applied to the field of litigation, but now people will not limit legal rhetoric to the field of litigation. In fact, rhetoric has important value in the field of law application. Therefore, some people advocate that the original face of rhetoric should be restored to a legal purpose. The reason why the legal attribute of rhetoric should be emphasized is based on the fact that legal rhetoric is the subject of law and should be taught as legal knowledge. It has been proved that Greek and Roman jurists and medieval scholastic laws do not use binding deductive methods from pre-determined rules, but instead exert all rhetoric and Aristotle-style forensics in the form of debates. Find the broadest possible agreement between opposing views to achieve the possible truth. It can be seen that rhetoric (study) has dominated the formation, development and change of Western legal traditions since ancient times. Moreover, rhetoric has indeed left a lot of practical influence in the law. As Perelman said: “As with a large number of civil and criminal litigation rules, several legal principles are directly imprinted with the imprint of their rhetoric origin. Thanks to the introduction of rhetoric in law, which makes highly formalized The ancient Roman law was transformed into a more ideal tool for justice.â€12 This connection between law and rhetoric has been fixed until early modern times.
But unfortunately, in the later development of Western law, especially since the rise of rationalism and scientism in modern times, this connection between law and rhetoric has been gradually forgotten. “In fact, rhetoric was in a state of extinction throughout the 19th century.†The connection between law and rhetoric is even more difficult to talk about. As a result, the close relationship between law and rhetoric has long been hidden and often not known. Only with the revival of rhetorical studies in the 20th century, this tradition was recognized by more and more jurists and explored.
3. The Western Legal (School) Tradition in Modern Times: The Dominance of the Logic Paradigm, the Decline of the Rhetoric Paradigm, and the Western Legal (School) Tradition. Since ancient Greece, Westerners have believed that the basic tool for discovering truth is logic. The difference between Western culture and other cultures is the pursuit of certainty. For a long time, Western logic theory has been characterized by the pursuit of certainty, as far as possible to avoid uncertainty such as accidents and arbitrariness. Therefore, Western academic circles often regard the logical form as the highest rational form. Logic is the science of reasoning, and it is the science of inevitable reasoning, especially the necessity of such reasoning is not determined by content, but by form. In the past 100 years, the logic discipline has developed rapidly: from traditional logic to modern formal logic, that is, mathematical logic. The most important feature of the latter is that it uses artificial formal language as a tool to accurately represent logical formulas using mathematical methods, thus establishing a rigorous reasoning system. In the West, the logic of formal research has a dominant influence on the formation of modern legal traditions.
In modern times, the logical paradigm has always dominated the Western legal tradition. So far, talking about law, logic, and rigor are the primary qualities of legal thinking activities. This view can be traced back to the 17th century British Bacon, he believes, "The law must be seen as an objective, scientific and rational methodology. 3 Of course, this view also reflects the typical Western legal culture characteristics. In this thinking In culture, Western law has also been marked with a clear logical imprint.
In the history of law, in order to pursue certainty, the European jurists once devoted themselves to the law as a complete axiom system. For example, Leibniz suggests that the legal system be described as a number of propositions in order to transplant the method of public reason into the law so that all legal conclusions can be "geometrically" derived. Since then, many legal people have been keen to use logical deduction as a conclusion from a legally binding source, thus limiting the will of human decision-making.
Especially in the 18th and 9th centuries, Western methodologists tried to make legal reasoning follow the syllogism logic. Many people believe that if the law as a whole can be summarized as a set of rules, then the only task left to the law is to assign specific facts to a rule or other rules. Thus, the law removes all ''human' factors) and becomes some kind of "science." The “green†and “subjective†influences are removed from the statement of the rules and their specific application in the case. Of course, this embodies the requirements of the times that generally require the elimination of human subjectivity and arbitrariness in the rise of the rule of law in the modern West. To achieve this goal, logical methods are widely used to achieve the legitimacy and certainty required by the rule of law. Thus, the logical paradigm firmly occupies the mainstream of Western legal traditions in modern times, and the logical attributes of the law have been widely recognized by various jurists in modern times.
Specifically, whether it is modern natural law, conceptual law in the 19th century, or legal formalism in the United States and the United States, there is a clear theoretical paradigm dominated by the logic paradigm. Rational natural law attempts to give way to legal reasoning in mathematics dominated by the natural sciences or as a branch of science. Moreover, the school's legislative theory holds that, through rational efforts, jurists can shape a perfect code that is implemented as a supreme legal wisdom by a judge in a mechanical manner. German concept law is more typical of the logic paradigm. Legal sociologist Weber, based on legal research in the early 20th century, believes that Western law has at least reached the highest methodological rationality and logical rationality in terms of its form. Weber believes that legal research in this sense is based on the following qualifications: (1) Any legal decision rate is 'applicable' to the concrete 'facts' of abstract law propositions; (2) for any specific facts, It is possible to draw decisions from current abstract law propositions through legal logic; (3) Therefore, the current objective law must be a 'no loophole' system of law propositions, or potentially embedded Such a system, or at least for the purposes of law application, is considered to be such a system; (4) Anyone who fails to be rationally constructed in law is irrelevant to the law; (5) the human community All actions must be interpreted as 'applicable' or 'implementation' of the legal proposition, or vice versa, as a 'violation' of the corrective proposition. "Of course, Weber's argument is mainly based on the experience of the civil law system. In the 19th century, jurists studied the law in an abstract way, rather than from the actual effects of the legal system. After the codification movement in the 19th century, according to the principle of separation of powers The court’s task is seen as simply applying the various rules contained in the Code. The judges of the court are considered to be “the mouthpiece of the legal rhetoric; the effectiveness of the law must not be weakened.†A widely circulated statement is that The judge is regarded as the "vending machine" of the law. This role theory of the negative positioning of the judge stems from people's confidence in the positive function of the logical method.
Moreover, the legal formalism of the English world during this period is also loyal to the logical method, and the latter draws conclusions from the selected clear legal rules through deductive methods. According to Langdell, law should be regarded as a science consisting of fixed principles or doctrines. Thus, the case teaching method is a method that can be compared with the scientific method contained in the printed book. As all the university's laboratories are for chemists and physicists, the library is ours.
Randall insists that learning legal principles from a case involves inductive reasoning like scientific reasoning.
Inductive reasoning can satisfy all legal analysis of 'scientific'. When the concept of legal science was ripe and prosperous in 1894, Kina would use the logical approach of induction as the 'most scientific method' to learn and teach law. "This is the concept of "logical theology of law" proposed by American jurists in this period. In addition, people are familiar with Holmes's theory that the life of law is not logic, but the experience, but he also It is pointed out that "in a broad sense, law has the same logical characteristics as any other thing; any reasonable opinion put forward by law, as any reasonable opinion given to other things, should be logical. At the same time, lawyers' oral language and written materials need to use analogy, distinction and deduction. 'It is obvious that even in the early 20th century, British and American jurists still had a firm belief in the logic paradigm.
Although the Anglo-American legal system is based on empirical case law, the focus on logical reason is not bad. The English and American judges operate from the premise to the conclusion by following the precedent (legal logic).
The legal reasoning tools in this process include analogies, affirmative precedents, and negative follow-up precedents. Moreover, there are 4 scholars who have verified that legal formalism dominates the judicial analysis of the US Supreme Court from 1886 to 1937.
The common law tradition still requires people to care about the logical form in the process of reasoning, otherwise the court judgment will lose its legitimacy.
Anglo-American judgments often contain a powerful force of logic.
In short, the experience of the two major legal systems in modern times shows that there is a close relationship between law and logic. The logical attribute of law has also become a common attribute of the statute law of the civil law system and the case law of the Anglo-American law system. In the Western legal tradition in modern times, there has always been a relatively close, complex and subtle relationship between law and logic paradigm. Some people think that the relationship between law and logic has both strong attraction and long-lasting conflict. Although the role of logic in law is sometimes overestimated and sometimes underestimated, given the special status of logic in Western intellectual traditions, it can be said that an important and obvious feature of Western legal culture is the logic (especially Formal logic). Indeed, there is a tendency between law and logic to attract each other and support each other: "On the one hand, law has a large number of different forms of reasoning and a wide range of social meanings. It is an ideal application for a logician. On the other hand, logic—the ability to provide tools for rational thinking is a necessary tool for many legal professionals to perfect legal reasoning and communication.†Logic is related to the law of thinking, which is designed to describe and guide people. Different issues are debated. And the law is clearly an area that is very suitable for logic to play. Therefore, since modern times, logic has become an important paradigm in the study of jurisprudence in Western countries.
This also affects the Western concept of law. Tang Degang said: "Law" is the most logical. Therefore, all lawyers are logic experts; and the status of lawyers in Western society has been restored from ancient Greece and Rome to today's Anglo-American law." Logic has become a prominent representation of Western law and justice. Logic has also become an important discipline in shaping Western legal traditions. Logic has become a basic attribute of Western law.
Corresponding to the dominance of the logical paradigm in jurisprudence is the decline of the rhetorical paradigm in jurisprudence. This decline is largely related to the gradual erosion of Western rhetoric in the modern era.
Originally, rhetoric and logic were used as the most "useful" liberal arts in the political life of ancient society. The latter was the best means of cultivating political elites and cultivating talents. Logic, grammar and rhetoric have been used as "trivium" in education. In the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries, there was a very important confusion among philosophers, and there was no longer any two kinds of different reasoning-Aristotle's analytical reasoning and dialectical reasoning. This discussion seems unacceptable to a person who has had a major influence on the history of rhetoric, Ram Ramus (15,154,572). Before him, the academic community generally combined logic and rhetoric. But in the 16th century, rhetoric was considered to be different from logical science and dialectics. This separation began with Ramos and Descartes (15,964,650). Ramos believes that the conception of the invention and the disposition of the arguments are part of the dialectic study, which is more appropriate for the scope of rhetorical research that Biristotle once advocated.
Therefore, rhetoric should only include the study of speech style and stylistic style. Descartes then separated the logic and dialectics of the method of evaluating the authenticity and validity of claims from rhetoric. According to this, in the academic research of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, the classical concepts of rhetoric and the study of logic, philosophy and law are gradually separated. 5 Since then, rhetoric has become a part of literary studies or English studies. Unfortunately, it is no longer considered a study of reasoning. The site of rhetoric has been greatly reduced.
The fate of rhetoric in the field of law is generally consistent with this. In ancient times, studying law and learning rhetoric were parallel. The separation of law from rhetoric appeared in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, beginning in the 16th century with Ramos and Descartes. If we say that the 12th century annotated school of law represents the "science-geometry" of that later legal reasoning.
Or the intermediate stage between the ''axiom methodology' and the ancient tradition based on ancient rhetoric techniques, then in the 18th and 19th centuries, with the rise of analytical positivist jurisprudence, the rhetorical paradigm tends to be low and toward the edge. Some scholars have said: "In the past 100 to 150 years, the mainstream of Western methodological thinking has regarded the aspect of rhetoric in legal expression as the kind of emotional and subjective factors that only lead to ambiguity and uncertainty. At the same time, the political and ethical aspects of the legal expression have been regarded by many jurists as 'given'. This is the concern of politicians or moral philosophers. It is conceivable that as a 'legalist' The task of the legalist is to maintain the inherent consistency of the law itself under the policy and moral values ​​given by the legislature, the executive, and the court." Thus, this legal philosophy inevitably focuses on the law. The most "logical" aspect, that is, the formal rules." Fundamentally, the reason why the rhetorical paradigm tends to decline in modern times is that its original territory has been taken up by the logical research paradigm.
Fourth, the contemporary revival history of the rhetorical paradigm in Western methodology studies is always moving forward in alternating cycles. If in the era of logic-led Western methodology, the rhetorical paradigm tends to decline, then with the revival of rhetoric in the second half of the 20th century, another attribute of legal activity, the rhetoric of emotion and passion as the basis of rhetoric Sex is more prominent. As the so-called "Thirty years of Hedong, thirty years of Hexi", after several centuries of silence, rhetoric (study) has become a striking research paradigm in contemporary Western methodology.
Contrary to the logic method, the rhetorical method (and the topical method) “attempts to touch a living life. This law established a 'death' in the case of the recovery of the old tradition (Aristotle, Cicero). The procedure of 'aproretisches', so that people can find their way in the 'open system'." Contemporary legal rhetoric research originated from this ancient tradition, as Haft of Germany said: the beginning of learning. The discussion and argumentation of the case is the initial content of law. It was only later that the day was born. Due to the increasing problem of our huge judicial system, the trust in the Code has not been shattered, but it has also been shaken. Because of other legal fields, such as the social insurance law or the tax law, it has once again fallen into doubt. (Kasuistik), therefore, we should re-remember the source of rhetoric in law. 'It can be seen that Western methodology is influenced and dominated by rhetoric at the source. Later, with the establishment of Western laws and judicial systems, it was more influenced by logic. Western laws and their disciplines, which were influenced by rhetoric from the beginning, have applicability, practicality, and argumentation, which are quite different from Western methodology, which was later dominated by logic. In the West, law and politics are crucial to the meaning of rhetoric. The re-emergence of law and rhetoric in the contemporary West is actually a return to the ancient law and the tradition of rhetoric.
Scholars have criticized formal logic in the revival of the rhetoric and thesis research in the Western intellectual circles in the 20th century. For example, Turmin, Perelman, and Philippe all believe that ''formal logic' has invaded other fields, so it has been negatively evaluated. According to Tuulmin's view, the argumentation pattern of formal logic syllogism Trying to characterize the arguments made in various argumentation fields, depicting an exaggerated and slick appearance. By virtue of the distinction that is recognized (that is, the difference between premise and conclusion), it is impossible to correctly understand the reality of real life. The arguments carried out confuse the use of language and conceal the complexity of the argument. Therefore, the argument should be released from formal logic.
The focus of Perelman's new rhetoric is also a criticism of traditional syllogism and formal logic. Perelman believes that this form of formal logic has its fundamental limitations in the application of the humanities. The reason is that the use of formal logic is based on three methodological principles: the use of artificial language, formalism, and objectivism. Perelman refuted this one by one, and believed that people can't get a self-righting knot with coercive power through logical deduction. A closer look reveals that the legal rebuttal of the logical paradigm is actually as early as the 19th century. In the late period, he began to learn to become a law of mathematics. 6 When conceptual jurisprudence intended to use jurisprudence as mathematics, it has actually pronounced its death penalty.
Highly rationalized laws attempt to make unchecked regulations on social life, but this is obviously not realistic.哈特在耶林的概念天国与现代分æžæ³•å¦æ–‡ä¸ï¼Œæ€»ç»“了耶林对概念法å¦çš„五点批判，其ä¸ä¹‹å°±æ˜¯ï¼šé”™è¯¯åœ°å°†æ³•å¾‹ç§‘å¦çš„那些概念与方法ç‰å½’于数å¦ä¹‹ä¸ï¼›å› æ¤ï¼Œæ‰€æœ‰çš„法律推ç†éƒ½æˆäº†çº¯ç²¹çš„算计问题，逻辑推演就是在这些算计之ä¸å±•å¼€æ³•å¾‹æ¦‚念的内容。耶林嘲笑的这些法å¦å®¶ä»¬å‡å…¥äº†ä¸€ä¸ªæ³•å¦æ¦‚å¿µçš„å¤©å ‚ã€‚åœ¨é•¿äºŽæ€è¾¨çš„德国，法å¦å®¶åœ¨åŽ†å²ä¸Šæ›¾ç»æŠŠé€»è¾‘范å¼è¿ç”¨å¹¶æŽ¨å‘æžè‡´ã€‚英美法å¦ä¸æœ‰ä¸ªä¸Ž''概念法å¦â€œç±»ä¼¼çš„æ法å³â€æœºæ¢°æ³•å¦â€œï¼ˆmechanicalurisprudence），也曾备å—垢病。如庞德认为，机械法å¦æœ€ç³Ÿç³•ä¹‹å¤„，便在于将概念当åšæœ€ç»ˆçš„解ç”，而éžæŽ¨ç†çš„å‰æ。如æ¤ä¸€æ¥ï¼Œæ¦‚念便ä¸å†æ˜¯æ¦‚念，而åªæ˜¯ä¸€å †ç©ºè¯è€Œå·²ã€‚法å¦ä¸å¯¹é€»è¾‘范å¼çš„批判一直æŒç»åˆ°20世纪。
ä¸è¿‡åº”注æ„，20世纪上åŠå¶è¥¿æ–¹æ³•å¦å®¶å¯¹é€»è¾‘予以批判时，也未能充分æ„识到逻辑å¦çš„最新å‘展。比如人们往往知é“éœå§†æ–¯æ›¾ç»å¯¹é€»è¾‘åšè¿‡æ‰¹åˆ¤ï¼Œä½†éœå§†æ–¯å’Œå…°å¾·å°”都没有æ„è¯†åˆ°å¼—é›·æ ¼çš„åŒæœŸè‘—作概念文å—（Begriffsschrift）已ç»åœ¨é€»è¾‘领域掀起了一场é©å‘½ã€‚兰德尔和éœå§†æ–¯æ‰€æåŠçš„逻辑仅仅是指“三段论â€ï¼ˆsyllogism）。1880年兰德尔著作的第二版出版，1881å¹´éœå§†æ–¯çš„论文普通法问世。上述两个著作都未能æ„识到逻辑领域的é©å‘½åˆšåˆšå¼€å§‹ã€‚å¼—é›·æ ¼ï¼ˆGottlobFrege）和皮尔士（CharlesSandersPierce）超越了亚里士多德å¼çš„三段论推ç†é€»è¾‘，并且给我们带æ¥äº†''现代逻辑“。在更晚近的一段时期，法å¦å®¶ä»¬æ‰å¼€å§‹è®¤çœŸå¯¹å¾…å…¨æ–°çš„çŽ°ä»£é€»è¾‘æ–¹æ³•ï¼Œå¹¶ä¸”è¯•å›¾å°†ä¹‹é€‚ç”¨äºŽæ³•å¾‹é—®é¢˜çš„ç ”ç©¶ä¹‹ä¸ã€‚现今å¦è€…çš„ç ”ç©¶è¡¨æ˜Žï¼Œæ³•å¦ä¸ŽçŽ°ä»£é€»è¾‘å¦çš„å‘展并ä¸åŒæ¥ã€‚颇具åæ€æ„å‘³çš„æ˜¯ï¼Œæ— è®ºæ˜¯ä¼ ç»Ÿç§‰æŒé€»è¾‘范å¼çš„法å¦ï¼Œè¿˜æ˜¯19世纪åŽæœŸå‡ºçŽ°çš„对逻辑的强烈批判（如耶林ã€éœå§†æ–¯ç‰ï¼‰ï¼Œä¸¤ç§çœ‹ä¼¼å¯¹ç«‹çš„立场居然都把â€é€»è¾‘“与''å½¢å¼æ¼”绎逻辑â€ç®€å•ç‰åŒã€‚
å°±æ¤è€Œè¨€ï¼ŒåŽè€…并未实现对å‰è€…在范å¼ä¸Šçš„æ ¹æœ¬è¶…è¶Šï¼Œè¿™æ˜¯ä¸‹é¢æ‰€è¦æ·±å…¥å‰–æžçš„。
ï¼ˆäºŒï¼‰ä¼ ç»Ÿæ³•å¦ç ”究ä¸é€»è¾‘范å¼çš„致命缺陷：将“逻辑â€ç‰åŒäºŽâ€œå½¢é€»è¾‘â€
ä¼ ç»Ÿæ³•å¦ç ”究ä¸é€»è¾‘范å¼å˜åœ¨çš„致命缺陷在于将“逻辑â€ç®€å•ç‰åŒäºŽ''形逻辑“。这é到法å¦ç ”究ä¸å¤å…´çš„修辞范å¼çš„诟病。在逻辑范å¼ä¸»å¯¼çš„è¥¿æ–¹æ³•å¾‹ä¼ ç»Ÿä¸ï¼Œäººä»¬ä¸€èˆ¬ä»Žç‹ä¹‰ä¸Šç†è§£é€»è¾‘，å³å°†''逻辑â€ä¸Ž''å½¢å¼æ¼”绎逻辑“简å•ç‰åŒã€‚è¿™ç§è§‚念ä¸ä»…体现在法å¦ç•Œï¼Œè€Œä¸”体现在逻辑å¦ç ”究ä¸ã€‚在很长一段时间里，主æµé€»è¾‘å¦å®¶å¿ƒä¸æœ‰ä¸¤ä¸ªç†æ‰€å½“然的ç‰å¼ï¼šé€»è¾‘=演绎逻辑；演绎逻辑=FDL（FormalDeductiveLogic，形å¼æ¼”绎逻辑）。这ç§ç‰åŒæ„识æºäºŽäººä»¬é»˜è®¤FDLå¯ä»¥åŒ…容或适用论è¯åˆ†æžï¼Œæ¢è¨€ä¹‹ï¼Œè•´æ¶µå…³ç³»å¯ä»¥ä»£è¡¨æ‰€æœ‰å‰æ对结论的关系。其实，将逻辑åŒå½¢å¼æ¼”绎逻辑简å•ç‰åŒä½“现的是一ç§é€»è¾‘观，å³æ‰€è°“â€æŠ½è±¡çš„逻辑观“â€é€»è¾‘是éžä¸ªä½“çš„ã€å½¢å¼çš„ã€æ™®éçš„ã€æ— 时空é™åˆ¶çš„ã€éžæƒ…景的ã€ä»·å€¼ä¸ç«‹çš„。æ®æ¤ï¼Œäººä»¬ä¸èƒ½åŒºåˆ†ä»Žé€»è¾‘的观点看个论è¯æ˜¯å¥½çš„和从修辞å¦è§’度看个论è¯æ˜¯å¥½çš„。7但这ç§é€»è¾‘观å˜åœ¨å¾ˆå¤§é—®é¢˜ï¼šå®ƒä»Žé€»è¾‘评价ä¸æŽ’除了归纳ã€è®¾è¯åŠè®¸å¤šå®žè·µæŽ¨ç†å½¢å¼ï¼Œæˆ–è€…ä»Žæ¼”ç»Žæ ‡å‡†è¿›è¡Œè¯„ä»·ï¼Œå°†å®ƒä»¬æ–¥ä¸ºæ— æ•ˆã€‚ç„¶è€Œï¼Œé€»è¾‘å¹¶ä¸ç‰äºŽå½¢å¼é€»è¾‘，更ä¸èƒ½è·Ÿå½¢å¼æ¼”绎逻辑简å•ç‰åŒã€‚澄清æ¤é—®é¢˜éœ€ä»Žæºå¤´ä¸Šè€ƒå¯Ÿã€‚亚里士多德是''逻辑å¦ä¹‹çˆ¶'，工具论是他身åŽå‡ºç‰ˆçš„一部é‡è¦é€»è¾‘å¦è‘—作。书ä¸è®ºè¾©ç¯‡å’Œè¾©è°¬ç¯‡ç ”究的是论è¯ï¼Œè€Œå‰åˆ†æžç¯‡åˆ™ä»¥æŽ¨è®ºä¸ºæ ¸å¿ƒã€‚å› æ¤ï¼Œä¸å¿ƒçš„æ•°å¦é€»è¾‘完全ä¸ç†ä¼šè®ºè¯çš„问题，而ç»å—æ•°å¦é€»è¾‘洗礼的导论逻辑（introductorylogic）误把关于蕴涵的ç†è®ºå½“作å¯å›Šæ‹¬æŽ¨è®ºå’Œè®ºè¯çš„一般逻辑ç†è®ºã€‚事实上，蕴涵和论è¯ä¸åŒã€‚FDLçš„ç ”ç©¶å¯¹è±¡æ˜¯è•´æ¶µï¼Œè€Œéžå½¢å¼é€»è¾‘的对象是论è¯ã€‚
å¯è§ï¼Œåœ¨è¥¿æ–¹é€»è¾‘å¦æºå¤´ä¸Šâ€œé€»è¾‘â€çš„概念本æ¥å¹¶ä¸æ˜¯é‚£ä¹ˆç‹éš˜=“逻辑â€çš„原åˆå†…涵远比åŽæ¥ä¸»å¯¼è¥¿æ–¹æ³•å¾‹çš„é‚£ç§â€œæŠ½è±¡çš„逻辑观â€è¦ä¸°å¯Œå¾—多：既有形å¼æŽ¨ç†æ„义上的逻辑，也有éžå½¢å¼è®ºè¯æ„义上的逻辑。但到åŽæ¥ï¼ŒçŽ°ä»£é€»è¾‘å¦ä¸»æµçœ‹æ³•å´å°†''逻辑è¯ä»…留给形å¼é€»è¾‘，而忽略其他任何推ç†å½¢å¼ã€‚è¿™æ ·ä¸€æ¥'å¬ä¼—消失了，逻辑确定性æˆäº†å”¯ä¸€æ ‡å‡†ã€‚修辞å¦ä¸Žè¾©è¯æ³•å·²ç»è¢«æŽ’除掉。逻辑俨然æˆäº†ç†æ€§çš„åŒ–èº«æˆ–åˆ¤åˆ«æ ‡å‡†ï¼Œè€Œè¿™ç§é€»è¾‘往往被ç†è§£ä¸ºå½¢å¼é€»è¾‘。
法å¦ç ”究ä¸ä¿®è¾žèŒƒå¼åœ¨å¤å…´ä¹‹é™…，也对逻辑范å¼äºˆä»¥å驳。在法律ä¸ï¼Œå°†é€»è¾‘与形å¼æ¼”绎逻辑简å•ç‰åŒçš„观点也很难站得ä½è„šã€‚法律å¯ä»¥æ ¹æ®å„ç§è®¡ç®—符å·äºˆä»¥è¡¨è¾¾ã€‚
è¿™ç§çœ‹æ³•â€œè·Ÿæ³•å¾‹æ–¹æ³•ä¸åè°ƒâ€ï¼Œå› 为“法律ä¸å……满了对从公ç†å‡ºå‘进行逻辑演绎解决的背离â€ã€‚而且'法律化约为一ç§å½¢å¼é€»è¾‘会跟任何法律体系的目的相悖“，而这ç§æ³•å¾‹ä½“系是''è¦è°ƒæŽ§ç¤¾ä¼šç”Ÿæ´»â€ã€‚个法律人甚至会å‘现形å¼é€»è¾‘å¦æ˜¯â€œæ¯«æ— æ„义和徒劳的：它å¤æ‚的和技术性的机制仅仅在é˜æ˜Žå·²çŸ¥çš„ä¸œè¥¿ï¼Œè€Œæ²¡æœ‰ä¸ºå»ºæž„è¶³ä»¥è§£å†³æ–°é—®é¢˜çš„æ³•å¾‹æ–¹æ³•è¿™ä¸€åˆ›é€ æ€§ä»»åŠ¡æ供实质性帮助â€ã€‚å¯è§ï¼Œå½¢å¼é€»è¾‘å¦çš„缺陷也éžå¸¸æ˜Žæ˜¾ï¼Œå°¤å…¶åœ¨æ³•å¾‹ä¸è¿™ç§ç¼ºé™·æ›´ä¸ºæ˜Žæ˜¾ã€‚既然法律体系是''è¦è°ƒæŽ§ç¤¾ä¼šç”Ÿæ´»â€œï¼Œæ»¡è¶³æ—¥å¸¸å®žé™…论è¯çš„需è¦ï¼Œé‚£ä¹ˆæ¤æ—¶é€»è¾‘å·²æ— èƒ½ä¸ºåŠ›ï¼Œè¿™ä¾¿ä¸ºä¿®è¾žæ供了用æ¦ä¹‹åœ°ã€‚
总之，有两ç§æ–¹æ³•è¦ç´ 曾ç»æ”¯é…è¥¿æ–¹æ³•å¾‹ä¼ ç»Ÿï¼šä¸€ç§æ˜¯é€»è¾‘，并且自近代以æ¥ï¼Œé€»è¾‘就牢牢主导ç€è¥¿æ–¹æ³•å¾‹ï¼›å¦ä¸€ç§æ˜¯ä¿®è¾žï¼Œè™½è¯´å®ƒåœ¨å¤ä»£è¥¿æ–¹æ³•å¾‹ä¼ 统ä¸åœ°ä½æ˜¾æ˜Žï¼Œå¯æ˜¯åŽæ¥åˆ™è¢«é€æ¸é—忘。逻辑与修辞虽然具有截然ä¸åŒçš„倾å‘，但å´åœ¨ä¸åŒåŽ†å²æ—¶æœŸä»Žæ ¹æœ¬ä¸Šå½¢å¡‘了西方法律（å¦ï¼‰ä¼ 统。总体上说，西方法å¦ç»åŽ†äº†ä¸€ä¸ªæ¼«é•¿çš„知识论上的å˜è¿ã€‚在舒国滢教授看æ¥ï¼Œè¿™ä¸ªå˜è¿çš„çªå‡ºä¹‹å¤„在于：法å¦çš„修辞å¦çŸ¥è¯†ä¸€æŠ€æœ¯èŒƒå¼é€æ¸è¢«å½¢å¼é€»è¾‘ï¼ˆå‡ ä½•å¦ï¼‰çš„知识一技术范å¼æ‰€é®è”½ï¼Œç”šè‡³è¢«å–代。ä¸è¿‡ï¼Œè¿™ä¸€æ•´ä½“趋å‘éšç€20世纪修辞å¦ç ”究的å¤å…´ï¼Œåœ¨å¦è€…努力下，é€æ¸å½¢æˆäº†ä¸€ç§æ–°çš„ç ”ç©¶é¢†åŸŸä¸€æ³•å¾‹ä¿®è¾žå¦ï¼ˆæˆ–修辞法å¦ï¼‰ã€‚而且西方法律è¿è¡Œå®žè·µè¡¨æ˜Žï¼Œé•¿æœŸä»¥æ¥è¢«å½¢å¼é€»è¾‘迷雾所é®è”½çš„修辞å¦æ€ç»´ä¸Žæ–¹æ³•ï¼Œåœ¨æ³•å¦é¢†åŸŸå…¶å®žåŒæ ·å¤§æœ‰ç”¨æ¦ä¹‹åœ°ã€‚
（三）修辞范å¼çš„å¼•å…¥å¯¹ä¼ ç»Ÿæ³•å¦çš„超越在20世纪åˆï¼Œéœå§†æ–¯å³æ´žå¯Ÿåˆ°æ³•å¾‹ä¸é€»è¾‘çš„å±€é™æ€§ã€‚一如éœå§†æ–¯ï¼Œå¡å¤šä½å’Œæœå¨ç‰äººä¹Ÿè¯•å›¾è¶…越形å¼é€»è¾‘，但他们å‡æœªçœŸæ£è§£å†³æ¤é—®é¢˜ã€‚éœå§†æ–¯ç‰äººè™½ç„¶çœ‹åˆ°äº†é€»è¾‘çš„å±€é™æ€§ï¼Œä½†åœ¨ä»–们的ç†è®ºä¸å¹¶æœªå®Œå¥½åœ°è§£å†³è¿™ä¸€é—®é¢˜ã€‚“所谓自明ã€æ˜Žæ˜¾ã€ç†æ€§ä¸Žé€»è¾‘致的说æœåŠ›ï¼Œå…¶æœ¬èº«å¹¶éžè‡ªè¶³ã€‚人们必须使用论æ®çš„力é‡æ¥è¯´æœè®ºæ®æ‰€é’ˆå¯¹çš„那些人。这一结论在éœå§†æ–¯é‚£é‡Œå¹¶æ²¡æœ‰ä»¥æ¸…æ™°çš„æ–¹å¼è¡¨è¾¾ï¼Œä½†è¿™å´å†…在于他的æ€è€ƒæ–¹ã€‚
这预示ç€ä»Žå½¢å¼é¢†åŸŸåˆ°è®ºè¾©é¢†åŸŸçš„巨大跨越。“故在纽约大å¦çš„马内利（Maneli）看æ¥ï¼Œæ–°è®ºè¾©ç†è®ºçš„æ ¹åŸºå·²ç”±éœå§†æ–¯æ‰€æ˜Žç¡®ï¼Œè€Œæœå¨åˆ™ä¸ºè¿™ç§åˆ†æžæ供了新视角。éœå§†æ–¯ç‰äººæœªèƒ½è§£å†³çš„难题，åŽæ¥åœ¨ä½©é›·å°”曼åŠå…¶è®ºè¾©ç†è®ºä¸æ‰¾åˆ°ç”案。如上文所论，耶林ã€éœå§†æ–¯ç‰äººçš„法å¦ç†è®ºè™½ç„¶å¯¹é€»è¾‘范å¼æ出了批判，但他们所ç†è§£çš„â€é€»è¾‘â€œæ— éžè¿˜æ˜¯å½¢å¼é€»è¾‘。而佩雷尔曼的å¦æœ¯ç ”ç©¶ä¸€å¼€å§‹ä¹Ÿæ˜¯å…³æ³¨é€»è¾‘é—®é¢˜ï¼Œä½†å› ä¸ºå¼•å…¥äº†ä¸€ç§æ–°çš„修辞å¦èŒƒå¼ï¼Œè€Œåœ¨ç ”ç©¶æ–¹æ³•ä¸Šä¾¿è¶…è¶Šäº†ä¼ ç»Ÿä¸Šå¯¹é€»è¾‘çš„ç‹ä¹‰ç†è§£ã€‚相比而言，19世纪末ã€20世纪åˆå¦‚耶林ã€éœå§†æ–¯å¯¹ä¼ 统法å¦ä¸é€»è¾‘çš„æ‰¹åˆ¤ï¼Œå…¶å®žå¹¶æ²¡æœ‰å®žçŽ°ç ”ç©¶èŒƒå¼ä¸Šçš„çªç ´ã€‚è¿™ç§çªç ´åªæœ‰åˆ°äº†20世纪ä¸æœŸä»¥æ¥ï¼Œç«™åœ¨ä¿®è¾žå¦ç«‹åœºçš„佩雷尔曼ã€å›¾å°”æ•ã€è²éŸ¦æ ¼ç‰é‚£é‡Œæ‰å¾—以实现。个ä¸åŽŸå› å³åœ¨äºŽï¼šè¿™ä¸€æ—¶æœŸä¸åŒå›½å®¶çš„å¦è€…æ出了一ç§æ–°çš„法å¦ç ”究范å¼ä¸€ä¿®è¾žã€‚ç”±æ¤ä¹Ÿå¯çœ‹å‡ºèŒƒå¼ç ”究è¿ç”¨äºŽæ³•å¦é¢†åŸŸæœ‰å…¶ä¸å¯æ›¿ä»£çš„功能。
20世纪50年代末以åŽï¼Œäººä»¬è®¤è¯†åˆ°åœ¨å½¢å¼é€»è¾‘和法律推ç†ä¹‹é—´å˜åœ¨ä¸€ä¸ªæ ¹æœ¬çš„ä¸å¯è°ƒå’Œçš„冲çªï¼Œè¿™æ¿€å‘了人们的一系列努力，试图将法律推ç†çš„一个替代性æè¿°æ¤æ ¹äºŽä¿®è¾žä¸Žè®ºè¾©çš„ä¼ ç»Ÿä¸ã€‚在当今西方，人们å¯å‘现以下趋势：“从演绎性è¯æ˜Žè½¬å‘商谈型è¯æˆï¼ˆdiscursiveustification）；从'é—åˆ'转å‘一ç§æ›´ä¸º'开放'的推ç†æ¨¡å¼ï¼›ä»Žç»å¯¹çš„æƒå¨è½¬å‘在å„ç§å¯èƒ½è¢«æŽ¥å—的替代模å¼ä¹‹é—´çš„对è¯é€‰æ‹©ã€‚â€ä¸Žåƒµç¡¬çš„逻辑相比，çµåŠ¨çš„ä¿®8辞更便于用æ¥å¤„ç†æ³•å¾‹ä¸æ— 处ä¸åœ¨çš„价值判æ–问题。
修辞å¦ç†è®ºä¸Žæ–¹æ³•çš„引入ä¸ä»…超越了éœå§†æ–¯ä»¥åŠåŽæ¥çš„æ³•å¾‹çŽ°å®žä¸»ä¹‰ï¼Œè€Œä¸”è¶…è¶Šäº†ä¼ ç»Ÿçš„å½¢å¼ä¸»ä¹‰æ³•å¦ã€‚在佩雷尔曼看æ¥â€œæ£æ˜¯æˆ‘们称之为'å½¢å¼ä¸»ä¹‰æ³•å¦''概念法å¦'或'机械法å¦'的支æŒè€…们喜欢使逻辑æˆä¸ºæ³•å¾‹çš„æ ¸å¿ƒï¼Œå¹¶å› æ¤è€Œç‰åŒäºŽé€»è¾‘å¦å®¶ã€‚但事实上，旦进入到法律争论当ä¸ï¼Œä»–们就是法å¦å®¶ï¼Œä»–们的'逻辑'推ç†è¿œè¿œè¶Šè¿‡å½¢å¼é€»è¾‘çš„é™åˆ¶ã€‚â€åœ¨è¿™é‡Œï¼Œä½©é›·å°”曼深刻洞è§åˆ°ä¸€ç›´è¢«å½¢å¼ä¸»ä¹‰æ³•å¦è¯è¯æ‰€æŽ©ç›–çš„ä¿®è¾žè®ºè¾©å› ç´ ã€‚ä»–ç”±æ¤æ‰¹åˆ¤å¸æ³•æŽ¨ç†çš„“工业模å¼â€ï¼ˆindustrialmodel），并以æ¤å›žåº”凯尔森的纯粹法å¦ã€‚在佩雷尔曼看æ¥ï¼Œå‡¯å°”森ç†è®ºå¿½ç•¥äº†è®ºè¾©çš„两个é‡è¦è´¡çŒ®ï¼šç¬¬å¿½ç•¥äº†è®ºè¾©åœ¨å°†å…·ä½“规则适用于事实情形ä¸ä¸–界的å¤æ‚性；第二，忽略了论辩在确立法律体系的基本å‰æä¸çš„作用。æ¤å¤–，从修辞å¦è§’度看，新分æžæ³•å¦æ´¾å“ˆç‰¹çš„ç†è®ºäº¦ä¸æ— 问题。有美国法å¦å®¶é€šè¿‡å¯¹ä¹ä¸ªæ¡ˆä¾‹çš„实è¯åˆ†æžè®¤ä¸ºï¼Œå“ˆç‰¹çš„如下观点有问题：å³è®¤ä¸ºæ³•å¾‹æ˜¯è§„范性的ã€ä¸å˜çš„ã€å…¬æ£æ— ç§çš„，更多地是通过规则与先例而ä¸æ˜¯é€šè¿‡äººäºˆä»¥è¡¨è¿°çš„。法律论è¯æ˜¯æž„æˆæ€§çš„，体现出å„ç§è¯å¢ƒä¸‹çš„å˜åŒ–，åæ˜ äº†å„方争辩者的ä¸åŒä»·å€¼ã€‚9æ€»ä¹‹ï¼Œæ— è®ºæ˜¯æ¦‚å¿µæ³•å¦ã€çº¯ç²¹æ³•å¦ã€æ–°åˆ†æžæ³•å¦ï¼Œè¿˜æ˜¯ç¾Žå›½çš„法律形å¼ä¸»ä¹‰ï¼Œåœ¨æ³¨é‡å¯¹æ³•çš„概念ã€å½¢å¼ã€é€»è¾‘äºˆä»¥ç ”ç©¶çš„åŒæ—¶ï¼Œéƒ½å¿½ç•¥äº†æ³•å¾‹ä¸çš„è®ºè¾©è¿™å› ç´ ï¼›åŒæ—¶ä¹Ÿå°†é€»è¾‘和论辩åšäº†ä¸é€‚å½“çš„åˆ†ç¦»ã€‚ç„¶è€Œï¼Œæ ¹æ®å½“代è¯è¨€å“²å¦ç ”究，人们抛弃了那ç§å°†é€»è¾‘从论辩ä¸åƒµç¡¬åˆ†ç¦»çš„è§‚ç‚¹ã€‚ç›¸åº”åœ°ï¼Œä¼ ç»Ÿä¸Šå°†é€»è¾‘å¦ã€è¾©è¯æ³•ä¸Žä¿®è¾žå¦ä¹‹é—´äºˆä»¥åƒµç¡¬çš„å¦ç§‘划分的观点也开始淡化。越出拉莫斯与笛å¡å°”在逻辑å¦ä¸Žä¿®è¾žå¦ä¹‹é—´æŒ–掘的壕沟，人们开始对交往的社会基础é‡æ–°äº§ç”Ÿå…´è¶£ï¼Œé¢„示ç€äººä»¬é‡æ–°å…³æ³¨è®ºè¾©çš„过程。由æ¤ï¼Œå¦ç•Œå¼€å§‹å‡ºçŽ°ä»Žé€»è¾‘åˆ°ä¿®è¾žçš„ç ”ç©¶èŒƒå¼è½¬æ¢ã€‚这一转æ¢ä¹Ÿä½“现于法律ä¸ã€‚
西方法å¦ä»Ž20世纪上åŠå¶å¯¹é€»è¾‘的批判，到20世纪åŽåŠå¶æ³•å¦ç ”究的修辞å¦è½¬å‘，定程度上超越了形å¼ä¸»ä¹‰æ³•å¦å’ŒçŽ°å®žä¸»ä¹‰æ³•å¦çš„ä¼ ç»Ÿäº‰è®ºã€‚å…¶å®žï¼Œè¿™ä¸¤ä¸ªæµæ´¾ä¹‹é—´çš„差异完全å¯ä»¥ä»ŽçŽ°ä»£ä¿®è¾žå¦è§‚点得以åè°ƒã€‚ä¿®è¾žç ”ç©¶èŒƒå¼çš„引入，æ出了如下法å¦æ–°ç†å¿µï¼šå…¶å¯¹æ³•å¾‹ï¼ˆè§„则）的ç†è§£ã€‚修辞å¦ç«‹åœºçš„引入，将对法律带æ¥ä¸€ç§å…¨æ–°çš„ç†è§£ï¼šæ³•å¾‹å¯è¢«ç•Œå®šä¸ºç§è®ºè¾©é¢†åŸŸã€‚è¿™æ„味ç€åœ¨å—规则拘æŸçš„å½¢å¼ä¸»ä¹‰å’Œè§„则怀疑的现实主义之间的一ç§ä¸é—´ç«‹åœºï¼šæ³•å¾‹è§„则的本质和å¬ä¼—的概念相关。法律规则在å¸æ³•ä¿®è¾žçš„领域ä¸è¿è¡Œï¼Œä½†å®ƒä»¬ä½œä¸ºç§ç‹¬ç«‹äºŽå¸æ³•è¿‡ç¨‹çš„抽象地代表法律的一ç§å‘½ä»¤å³æ— 法予以解释。从修辞å¦è§†è§’看，法律å¯è¢«æ述为一ç§å¯¹è®ºè¾©çš„实施。近年æ¥ï¼Œè‹±å›½éº¦è€ƒå¯†å…‹åœ¨ä¿®è¾žä¸Žæ³•æ²»ï¼šä¸€ç§æ³•å¾‹æŽ¨ç†ç†è®ºä¸€ä¹¦ä¸ä¹Ÿæ出法律的å¯äº‰è¾©æ€§'æ°æ˜¯ä½œä¸ºå¯äº‰è¾©çš„（arguable）法律这ç§è§‚念让我们立马考虑法律论辩的修辞特å¾ã€‚åªè¦æ˜¯æœ‰å…¬å¼€è®ºè¾©è¿‡ç¨‹çš„地方，就会有修辞的å˜åœ¨ã€‚“10这修辞å¦ç«‹åœºçš„法律观，呼应了法律与修辞å¦åœ¨æºå¤´ä¸Šçš„密切è”系。
其二，对å¸æ³•ï¼ˆè£åˆ¤ï¼‰çš„ç†è§£ã€‚修辞å¦è§†è§’的引入，对å¸æ³•è£åˆ¤å°¤å…·å¯ç¤ºæ„义。近代以æ¥ï¼Œè¥¿æ–¹æ³•å¾‹æ€æƒ³çš„主æµå‡ºäºŽå¯¹å¸æ³•ä¸“æ–的顾忌，在å¸æ³•æƒä¸Žå¸æ³•è£åˆ¤æœºåˆ¶çš„æž„é€ ä¸Šï¼Œæ€»æ˜¯å¯»æ±‚ç‹¬æ–与éžç†æ€§çš„æ„志干预的最å°åŒ–。如果说形å¼ä¸»ä¹‰æ³•å¦è¯•å›¾åœ¨å¸æ³•ä¸æžåŠ›æŽ’é™¤ä¸ªäººå› ç´ ï¼Œç”±æ¤ä¿®è¾žæ´»åŠ¨æ— 法施展的è¯ï¼Œé‚£ä¹ˆï¼ŒåŽæ¥çš„现实主义法å¦åˆ™æžåº¦å¼ 扬了å¸æ³•ä¸çš„ä¸ªäººå› ç´ ï¼ŒäºŒè€…å‡æ— 法妥当解决å¸æ³•æ´»åŠ¨çš„åˆç†æ€§ã€‚修辞å¦ä½œä¸ºè¶…越形å¼ä¸»ä¹‰ä¸ŽçŽ°å®žä¸»ä¹‰ä¹‹äº‰çš„ç§æ–°è§†è§’，将法官解释为ç§è®ºè¾©ä»£ç†äººã€‚他拥有多ç§è¯´æœæ‰‹æ®µï¼Œå…¶ä¸åŒ…å«æ³•å¾‹è§„则但åˆä¸é™äºŽæ¤ã€‚修辞å¦å°†æ³•å®˜é‡æ–°ç½®äºŽè®ºè¾©çš„领地。它æ出法律规则的性质è¦å‚照其在å¸æ³•è¿‡ç¨‹çš„è¿ç”¨æ¥åŠ 以解释，而ä¸æ˜¯ç›¸å。修辞å¦é‡ç”³äº†äº¤å¾€äº’动对那ç§å¤ç«‹è¡¨è¾¾çš„å½¢å¼çœŸç†çš„优先性。å¸æ³•ç†ç”±æ供了分æžçš„起点，而ä¸æ˜¯æŸäº›ç†æƒ³åŒ–的规则体系。对判决的分æžæ˜¯ä½œä¸ºä¸€ç§è®ºè¾©è¯´æœçš„å®žæ–½ï¼Œå¯¹æœ‰æ•ˆæ€§çš„æ£€æµ‹æ ‡å‡†ä¸æ˜¯æ£ç¡®æ€§ï¼Œè€Œæ˜¯è¯´æœæ€§ã€‚在当今社会，å¸æ³•æ‰€è¦æ‹…负的使命艰巨而å¤æ‚。如何åˆæ³•ã€åˆç†åœ°åº”对快速å˜åŒ–的政治ã€ç»æµŽã€ç¤¾ä¼šå‘展实际需è¦æ˜µï¼Œç”案是，法官应è¿ç”¨ä¿®è¾žå¦çš„实践智慧去化解å„ç§éš¾é¢˜ã€‚
在修辞å¦èŒƒå¼å½±å“下，人们对法律与å¸æ³•çš„观念产生很大å˜åŒ–。西方法律实践ä¸çš„修辞活动在å¦ç†ä¸Šçš„æ£å½“性由æ¤äº¦å¾—到确立。当然，似乎也很难说å˜åœ¨ä»Žé€»è¾‘到修辞的法å¦ç ”究在范å¼ä¸Šçš„æ ¹æœ¬è½¬æ¢ã€‚范å¼è½¬æ¢ç”¨æ¥æ述在科å¦èŒƒç•´é‡Œï¼Œä¸€ç§åœ¨åŸºæœ¬ç†è®ºä¸Šæ ¹æœ¬å‡è®¾çš„改å˜ã€‚è¿™ç§æ”¹å˜ï¼ŒåŽæ¥äº¦è¢«åº”用于å„ç§å…¶ä»–å¦ç§‘æ–¹é¢çš„巨大转å˜ã€‚åº”ç”¨äºŽæœ¬æ–‡ç ”ç©¶ï¼Œè¥¿æ–¹æ³•å¾‹ä¸Žæ³•å¦æ•´ä½“ä¸Šåœ¨ä»Žä¼ ç»Ÿä¸Šè¢«é€»è¾‘èŒƒå¼æ‰€ä¸»å¯¼ï¼Œè½¬æ¢åˆ°å¯¹ä¿®è¾žèŒƒå¼çš„关注。虽说å˜åœ¨ä¸€ä¸ªå¤§çš„ç ”ç©¶è½¬æ¢ï¼Œä½†é€»è¾‘范å¼åœ¨æ³•å¦ä¸çš„地ä½ä¾ç„¶å¹¶æ²¡æœ‰è¢«å½»åº•å–代。比如，佩雷尔曼的新修辞å¦å…¶å®žå¹¶æœªå°±æ¤å¦å®šå½¢å¼é€»è¾‘，而是将其放在应有的ä½ç½®ä¸Šã€‚å½¢å¼é€»è¾‘是ä¾æ®æ¼”绎法或归纳法进行说明或è¯æ˜Žçš„技巧；而辩è¯é€»è¾‘或新修辞å¦åˆ™åœ¨å½¢å¼é€»è¾‘的基础上增添了论辩的技术。从逻辑到修辞的范å¼æ¼”进，ä¸æ˜¯è¯´åŽè€…如今已ç»å–代了å‰è€…，其实å‰è€…ä¾ç„¶æ˜¯æ”¯æ’‘西方法å¦çš„一ç§å¿…è¦çš„方法论è¦ç´ 。
五ã€é€»è¾‘与修辞：ä¸å›½æ³•å¦è¯å¢ƒä¸‹çš„æ€è€ƒåœ¨ä¸å›½è¯å¢ƒä¸‹ï¼Œé€»è¾‘ã€ä¿®è¾žä¸Žæ³•å¾‹çš„关系问题需è¦è®¤çœŸå¯¹å¾…。国内近年æ¥ä¹Ÿå…´èµ·æ³•å¾‹ä¿®è¾žå¦ç ”ç©¶ã€‚è¿™é‡Œæ‰€ç ”ç©¶çš„é€»è¾‘ã€ä¿®è¾žä¸Žæ³•å¾‹ä¹‹ä¸»æ—¨ï¼Œåœ¨ä¸å›½ç‰¹å®šçš„制度ã€æ–‡åŒ–ã€å¦æœ¯è¯å¢ƒä¸‹æ怕跟西方会有所ä¸åŒï¼Œç”šè‡³æœ‰å¾ˆå¤§ä¸åŒã€‚
å¦ç•Œæœ‰ä¸€ç§æµä¼ 甚广的看法认为，ä¸å›½ä¼ 统法律ä¸æ˜¯ä¸å¤§è®²é€»è¾‘的。如å”德刚在谈了西方法律如何讲逻辑之åŽï¼Œè®¤ä¸ºï¼šçˆ·'å’Œ'狗头讼师'。我们的'仲尼之徒å‘是注é‡'为政以德'çš„ã€‚æ¯«æ— æ³•ç†å¸¸è¯†çš„ä¸ï¼›æ–å¾—ä¸å¥½çš„，则æ¥ä»–个'和尚打伞'ï¼Œæ— æ³•ï¼ˆå‘ï¼‰æ— å¤©ï¼Œæ»¡å£é©å‘½å¤§é“ç†ï¼Œäº‹å®žä¸Šåˆ™è¿žæœ€èµ·ç 的逻辑也没有了。“11ä¸å¤§è®²é€»è¾‘，这ç§æ°‘æ—æ€ç»´æ–¹å¼åœ¨å¸æ³•è£åˆ¤ä¸è¡¨çŽ°å¾—尤为明显。就整体而言，å¤ä»£åˆ¤è¯ä¸€èˆ¬é‡åœ¨è¯´æƒ…，而ä¸é‡è¯´ç†ï¼Œåˆ¤å†³çš„内在逻辑过程较少完整地ã€æ¸…楚地表现出æ¥ã€‚
ç”±æ¤ï¼Œè‡ªå¤ä»¥æ¥åœ¨ä¸å›½å½¢æˆä¸€ç§ä¸åŒäºŽè¥¿æ–¹çš„实质性æ€ç»´ã€‚当代ä¸å›½æ³•å®˜ä»ç„¶æ™®éå˜åœ¨ç€è¿™ç§å®žè´¨æ€§æ€ç»´ã€‚但这ç§æ€ç»´å…·æœ‰æ˜Žæ˜¾çš„缺陷，尤其是跟ä¸å›½ç¤¾ä¼šä¸æ–迈å‘法治的现实需求ä¸ç¬¦ã€‚其实，这ç§ç¼ºé™·å½’æ ¹åˆ°åº•è¿˜æ˜¯é€»è¾‘æ€ç»´çš„æ¬ ç¼ºã€‚åŸºäºŽè¿™ç§è§‚点，人们往往会进æ¥æ出：对于当代ä¸å›½è€Œè¨€ï¼Œæˆ‘们更需è¦ç§æ³•çš„å½¢å¼ç†æ€§ã€‚其实，类似的看法在民国时期å³å·²ç»å‡ºçŽ°ã€‚如王伯ç¦è®¤ä¸ºï¼šâ€œæˆ‘们现阶段的执法者，ä¸è®ºå…¶ä¸ºå¸æ³•å®˜æˆ–行政官，ä¸æ‚£å…¶ä¸èƒ½è‡ªç”±ï¼Œå”¯æå…¶ä¸çŸ¥ç§‘å¦ï¼Œä¸æ‚£å…¶æ‹˜æ³¥é€»è¾‘，唯æ其没有概念。â€æˆ‘å›½ä¼ ç»Ÿå¸æ³•å®˜é€»è¾‘æ€ç»´çš„æ¬ ç¼ºï¼Œè·Ÿæˆ‘å›½ä¼ ç»Ÿå“²å¦æ€ç»´ç‰¹å¾æœ‰å¾ˆå¤§å…³ç³»ã€‚逻辑å¦åœ¨æˆ‘国往往体现在å¤ä»£å家æ€æƒ³ä¸ï¼Œç„¶è€Œè¿™ä¸€æ€æƒ³ä¸€ç›´å´æœªèŽ·å‘展，å而备å—排挤，æˆä¸ºå¦æœ¯æœ«æµã€‚æ‹’æ–¥å家æ€æƒ³çš„åŽæžœå°±æ˜¯ä¸å›½ä¼ 统哲å¦ä¸é€»è¾‘ç†æ€§æˆä¸ºèƒ¡é€‚所说的“衰è½çš„科å¦â€ï¼Œé€»è¾‘方法始终没有在ä¸å›½ä¼ 统哲å¦ä¸å‘展起æ¥ã€‚结果，ä¸å›½ç§‘å¦å§‹ç»ˆæ²¡æœ‰è¿ˆå‡ºç†æ€§çš„逻辑论è¯é‚£å…³é”®çš„一æ¥ï¼Œå§‹ç»ˆæ²¡æœ‰èµ°å‡ºç»éªŒçš„èŒƒå›´ã€‚å› æ¤â€œä¸å›½å“²å¦çš„推ç†æ€ç»´æ–¹ï¼Œæœ‰ç›¸å½“多的部分是藉ç€'体è¯'而éž'论è¯'，'论è¯'é‡åœ¨åˆ†æžæ€è¾¨ï¼Œä»¥åŠè—‰ç”±æŽ¨ç†å½¢å¼è§„则ä¿è¯æŽ¨è®ºçš„æ£ç¡®æ€§ã€‚而'体è¯'é‡åœ¨èº«ä½“力行的实践，是在活动，å˜åŒ–ä¸æ„Ÿåº”ç€åŒä¸€ä¸»ä½“ä¸çš„彼端。â€å“²å¦æ€ç»´é‡â€œä½“è¯â€è€Œè½»â€œè®ºè¯â€ï¼Œæ“…长于情感ã€ç›´è§‰ã€ä½“验，而在认知ã€ç†æ™ºã€æŽ¨ç†æ–¹é¢è¾ƒä¸ºæ¬ 缺。
这也体现在ä¸å›½å¤ä»£å¸æ³•ä¸ã€‚å¤ä»£å¸æ³•è®ºè¯å’Œè£åˆ¤è¿‡ç¨‹ä¸ä¸ªçªå‡ºçš„特点就是认知和情感èžåˆåœ¨èµ·ã€‚知ã€æƒ…ã€æ„处于åˆä¸åˆ†çš„状æ€ï¼Œè€Œå…¶ä¸æƒ…æ„Ÿå› ç´ èµ·ç€é‡è¦ä½œç”¨ï¼Œè¿™ä½¿å¾—ä¼ ç»Ÿæ€ç»´ã€è®ºè¯å¸¦æœ‰å¼ºçƒˆçš„感情色彩，使æ€ç»´æŒ‰ç…§ä¸»è§‚感情需è¦æ‰€å†³å®šçš„æ–¹å‘å‘展。这倒是给修辞在判决ä¸çš„è¿ç”¨æ供了广泛å¯èƒ½æ€§ã€‚众所周知，ä¸å›½å¤ä»£çš„确出现了ä¸å°‘æžå¯Œæ–‡å¦è‰²å½©çš„判è¯ã€å¦™åˆ¤ã€‚è¿™ç§çŽ°è±¡çš„大é‡å˜åœ¨ä½¿å¾—å¤ä»£è£åˆ¤è¡¨çŽ°å‡ºæ˜¾è‘—的诗性æ€ç»´ç‰¹å¾ã€‚从这个æ„义上，在逻辑与修辞问题上，ä¸å›½å¤ä»£æ³•å¾‹æ–‡åŒ–似乎更近于修辞而ç–于逻辑。
但å¦ç•Œè¿˜æœ‰ä¸€ç§è§‚点å´ä¸è¿™ä¹ˆçœ‹ï¼Œè€Œæ˜¯è®¤ä¸ºï¼Œå†³éžå¦‚å¾ˆå¤šäººè¯´çš„é‚£æ ·ï¼Œä¸å›½æ€ç»´ä¼ 统ä¸è®²é€»è¾‘甚至没有逻辑；相å，ä¸å›½æ€ç»´ä¼ 统有自身的逻辑。åŽè£”哲å¦å®¶æˆä¸è‹±å…ˆç”Ÿå³è®¤ä¸ºï¼šâ€œæ±‰è¯æ€ç»´çš„è¿™ç§è¾©è¯ç‰¹å¾ä¸€å°±åƒå¸¸å¸¸åœ¨é“家和ä¸å›½ä½›æ•™ä¸æ‰€è§åˆ°çš„é‚£æ ·åˆ›é€ äº†ä¸å›½æ–‡åŒ–ä¸è®¸å¤šå¤æ‚而åˆç²¾ç‚¼çš„论è¯å’ŒæŽ¨ç†ã€‚æ ¹æ®çŽ°ä»£é€»è¾‘和逻辑哲å¦çš„规则和原则，说ä¸å›½è¯è¨€æˆ–ä¸å›½è¯æ³•æ²¡æœ‰é€»è¾‘性是åè¶³çš„æµ…è–„æ— çŸ¥ã€‚â€12应当肯定，ä¸å›½é€»è¾‘有其特殊的è¯è¨€å’ŒæŽ¨ç†ï¼Œå¯ä»¥è¯´æ˜¯ä¸€ç§ç‰¹æ®Šçš„逻辑，与西方ä¸åŒçš„逻辑。相应地，在法律领域也ä¸èƒ½è¯´æ²¡æœ‰é€»è¾‘。如有人指出，ä¸å›½å¤ä»£åˆ¤å†³å¹¶éžä¸è®²é€»è¾‘，ä¸ä½†æœ‰èˆ¬çš„三段论推ç†ï¼Œè€Œä¸”还éµå¾ªç€å¥—å¯èƒ½ä¸ä¸ºæˆ‘们熟知的逻辑判案，这是跟当时人们的è¯è¨€è§„则和生活世界紧密相关的。之所以导致认为å¤ä»£åˆ¤å†³ä¸æ²¡æœ‰é€»è¾‘ï¼Œæ˜¯å› ä¸ºå½“ä¸‹ä¸å›½è®¸å¤šç ”究法律逻辑å¦çš„著作就多多少少å离了æ£è½¨ï¼Œå®ƒä»¬åªæ˜¯æŠŠçº¯ç²¹é€»è¾‘å¦è½¬åŒ–到法律领域里，而没有真æ£å…³æ³¨çŽ°å®žä¸çš„法律推ç†åˆ°åº•æ˜¯æ€Žæ ·çš„。
总结上文，在对ä¸å›½å¤ä»£æ³•å¾‹ä¸Žå¸æ³•ç©¶ç«Ÿæ˜¯å¦ä½“现出逻辑ç†æ€§é—®é¢˜ä¸Šï¼Œå·²ç»å‡ºçŽ°ä¸¤ç§å¯¹ç«‹çš„è§‚ç‚¹ã€‚åœ¨ç ”ç©¶ä¸ï¼Œä¸åŒå¦è€…明显对“逻辑è¯èµ‹äºˆäº†ä¸åŒå†…涵，甚至跟西方å¦æœ¯èƒŒæ™¯ä¸‹çš„â€é€»è¾‘“有很大ä¸åŒã€‚å¯è§è¿™ä¸ªé—®é¢˜åœ¨ä¸å›½è¯å¢ƒä¸‹åº”该说是比较å¤æ‚，ä¸å®œç®€å•ä¸‹åˆ¤ï¼Œåº”予以具体分æžï¼Œæ›´éœ€è¿›ä¸€æ¥ç ”究。
ä¸å›½ç¤¾ä¼šè¿˜æœ‰ä¸ªè¾ƒä¸ºç‰¹æ®Šçš„背景是，到了清末å˜æ³•ä¿®å¾‹ä»¥åŽï¼Œè¢«è¿«æ”¾å¼ƒäº†å¤ä»£é‚£å¥—法律，转而全盘移æ¤è¥¿æ–¹æ³•å¾‹ã€‚这使得逻辑ã€ä¿®è¾žä¸Žæ³•å¾‹çš„关系问题在ä¸å›½çš„ç ”ç©¶é¢ä¸´æ›´ä¸ºå¤æ‚的背景。有å¦è€…对近代以æ¥æˆ‘国判è¯åšäº†ç ”究，认为ä¸å›½çš„判è¯ç»åŽ†äº†ä»Žå¤ä»£çš„æ–‡å¦åŒ–ã€æƒ…感化ã€é“å¾·åŒ–ï¼Œè‡³è¿‘ä»£çš„å¯¹ä¼ ç»Ÿçš„æ‰¬å¼ƒåŠåŸŸå¤–的引鉴，彰显出判è¯çš„程å¼åŒ–ã€é€»è¾‘性ã€ä¸“业化ç‰ç‰¹ç‚¹ï¼Œèµ°å‡ºäº†ä¸€æ¡ç”±ï¼ˆå¤ï¼‰å°é—到（近代）开放的路径。尤其是民国以åŽæŸäº›å…¸åž‹åˆ¤è¯åœ¨ç»“æž„åŠè¯´ç†ä¸Šç”šè‡³è¿œè¿œè¶…过了当代判è¯ã€‚13å¯è§ï¼Œè‡³å°‘在ä¸å›½æ³•å¾‹ä¼ 统是å¦è®²é€»è¾‘这问题上，还应以å‘展å˜åŒ–的观点去看待。
在历å²ä¸Šï¼Œé€»è¾‘å¦ä¸Žä¿®è¾žå¦åœ¨ä¸åŒæ—¶æœŸåˆ†åˆ«å¯¹è¥¿æ–¹æ³•å¾‹äº§ç”Ÿè¿‡å¼ºçƒˆçš„å½±å“和支é…。
法律ä¸çš„逻辑与修辞往往泾æ¸åˆ†æ˜Žã€‚æˆ‘å›½æ³•å¾‹ä¼ ç»Ÿæ²¡æœ‰è¥¿æ–¹è¿™ç§èƒŒæ™¯ï¼Œæ€»ä½“上看，在我国å¤ä»£æ³•å¾‹ä¼ 统ä¸ï¼Œé€»è¾‘与修辞的区分似乎ä¸åƒè¥¿æ–¹é‚£ä¹ˆæ˜Žæ˜¾ã€‚但逻辑与修辞在我国法律ä¸ï¼ŒåŒæ ·ä¹Ÿæœ‰ä¸€äº›ä¸åŒã€‚而且，上文论åŠçš„逻辑与修辞在法律è¿è¡Œä¸å¯èƒ½å‡ºçŽ°çš„出入，往往也体现在ä¸å›½æ–‡åŒ–ä¼ ç»Ÿä¸ï¼Œå¦‚有言：“信言ä¸ç¾Žï¼Œç¾Žè¨€ä¸ä¿¡â€ï¼Œæˆ–者王国维所说爱“。当下ä¸å›½å¸æ³•è£åˆ¤ä¸å½¢å¼é€»è¾‘å¾€å¾€ä¼šå› ä¸ºå…¶å®žè´¨ä¸Šçš„ä¸å¯æŽ¥å—性而å—到指摘。
ä¸å¯æŽ¥å—æ€§æ˜¯ä¸ªä¿®è¾žæ ‡å‡†ï¼Œå¯è§é€»è¾‘与修辞在当代ä¸å›½å¸æ³•ä¸åŒæ ·å¯èƒ½å‡ºçŽ°å†²çªã€‚
自å¤ä»¥æ¥ï¼Œä¸å›½å¸æ³•å½¢æˆäº†ä¸åŒäºŽè¥¿æ–¹çš„实质性æ€ç»´ã€è¯—性æ€ç»´ã€‚è¿‘å¹´æ¥æˆ‘国法院系统推行的能动å¸æ³•æ”¿ç–，其实也是上述æ€ç»´åœ¨å½“代的延伸。体现实质性æ€ç»´çš„法律修辞还被è¿ç”¨åœ¨å¾‹å¸ˆæ‰§ä¸šä¸ã€‚在目å‰ä¸å›½åª’体高度关注的çƒç‚¹æ¡ˆä»¶ä¸ï¼Œå®šä¼šæœ‰å¾‹å¸ˆè¯•å›¾ç”¨é›„辩的修辞首先影å“公众和/或媒体，然åŽå°†ä¹‹è½¬åŒ–为对法官的政治干预。åŒæ ·åœ¨ä¸€äº›çƒç‚¹æ¡ˆä»¶ä¸ï¼Œä¸€äº›æ³•å®˜å› 为ä¸å½“修辞而被舆论推å‘风å£æµªå°–。å¯è§ï¼Œåœ¨å½“代ä¸å›½æ³•å¾‹ä¸Žå¸æ³•ä¸ï¼Œä¸è®ºæ˜¯é€»è¾‘问题还是修辞问题，都是éžå¸¸å€¼å¾—进一æ¥å‘掘的实际问题。
结è¯åŸºäºŽä¸è¥¿æ–¹å¦æœ¯è¯å¢ƒï¼Œæœ¬æ–‡å¯¹é€»è¾‘与修辞这对法å¦èŒƒå¼ï¼Œä¾§é‡ä»Žè¥¿æ–¹ä½œäº†å®è§‚上的分æžä¸Žæ¢³ç†ã€‚总的æ¥è¯´ï¼Œé€»è¾‘与修辞范å¼ç›´éƒ½åœ¨æ”¯é…ç€è¥¿æ–¹æ³•å¾‹ä¼ 统的形æˆã€å‘展和å˜åŒ–。二者既彼æ¤å¯¹ç«‹ã€æŽ’斥，乃至一度分é“扬镳ã€å½¢åŒé™Œè·¯ï¼Œå½“然也有相互影å“ã€å½¼æ¤åˆä½œï¼Œå…±åŒä¿ƒè¿›ä¸è¥¿æ–¹æ³•å¾‹ä¸Žå¸æ³•æ–‡æ˜Žçš„å‘展。在法律å²ä¸Šï¼Œé€»è¾‘与修辞分别在ä¸åŒæ—¶æœŸå¯¹å½¢å¡‘è¥¿æ–¹æ³•å¾‹ä¼ ç»Ÿèµ·åˆ°å…³é”®ä½œç”¨ï¼Œå¹¶ç”±æ¤å½°æ˜¾å‡ºè¥¿æ–¹æ³•å¾‹ä¸åŒäºŽä¸–界其他法律的特色。å¯ä»¥ç¬¼ç»Ÿåœ°è¯´ï¼Œæ³•å¾‹åº”兼顾内容与形å¼ã€ç†æ™ºä¸Žæƒ…感，åè°ƒç†æ€§ä¸Žåˆç†æ€§ä¹‹é—´çš„关系，å³åº”处ç†å¥½é€»è¾‘与修辞的关系。在当下欧美å„国法律制度实践ä¸ï¼Œé€»è¾‘与修辞已æˆä¸ºä¸¤ç§åŸºæœ¬çš„法律方法è¦ç´ 。在ä¸å›½è¯å¢ƒä¸‹ï¼Œé€»è¾‘与修辞范å¼æ怕会跟西方有很大ä¸åŒï¼Œä½†è¥¿æ–¹å¯¹æ¤é—®é¢˜çš„ç»éªŒæ•™è®å€¼å¾—æˆ‘ä»¬åŽ»å€Ÿé‰´ã€‚æ•´ä½“è€Œè¨€ï¼Œæˆ‘å›½æ³•å¾‹æ–‡åŒ–ä¼ ç»Ÿä¸ï¼Œé€»è¾‘æ€ç»´è¾ƒä¸ºæ¬ 缺，而实质性æ€ç»´é¢‡ä¸ºæ“…长。在法律è¿è¡Œä¸ï¼Œä½“现实质性æ€ç»´çš„修辞更容易被人用æ¥è¾¾åˆ°æŸç§ç›®çš„。å¸æ³•ä¸çš„修辞也容易导致è£åˆ¤æ›´å¤šå—制于那ç§æ‰æ‘¸ä¸å®šçš„æ°‘æ„ã€‚å› æ¤ä¸ªä¹ 惯于实质性æ€ç»´ã€è¯—性æ€ç»´çš„国度在迈å‘法治的过程ä¸ï¼Œæ ¼å¤–需è¦æ³¨é‡é€»è¾‘的作用。当然，修辞在法律ä¸çš„åˆç†ä»·å€¼ä¹ŸåŒæ ·ä¸èƒ½å¿½è§†ã€‚逻辑与修辞这一对范å¼ä¹‹é—´çš„åˆç†å…³ç³»ï¼Œåœ¨æˆ‘国ä¾æ³•æ²»å›½è¿›ç¨‹ä¸ä¹Ÿåº”妥当处置。
shouldbeproperlydisposedinChinaruleoflawprocess. Q比佩雷尔曼：法律与修辞å¦ï¼Œæœ±åº†è‚²è¯‘，载陈金钊ã€è°¢æ™–主编：法律方法（2），山东人民出版社2003年版，第乔瓦尼è¨å°”托尔：法律推ç†ï¼Œæ±ªä¹ æ ¹ç‰è¯‘，æ¦æ±‰å¤§å¦å‡ºç‰ˆç¤¾2011年版，第425页。
胡适å£è¿°è‡ªä¼ ，å”德刚整ç†ç¿»è¯‘，安教育出版社2005å¹´ç‰ˆï¼Œç¬¬äº”ç« æ³¨é‡Š23，第121页。
å‰å¼•ï¼Œè€ƒå¤«æ›¼ç‰ä¸»ç¼–书，第310页。
å‚è§å¼ 钰光：“法律论è¯â€æž„é€ ä¸Žç¨‹åºä¹‹ç ”究，å°æ¹¾è¾…ä»å¤§å¦æ³•å¾‹å¦ç ”究所2001å¹´åšå£«è®ºæ–‡ï¼Œç¬¬148ã€00页。
å‚è§å¾·0耶林：为æƒåˆ©è€Œæ–—争，郑永æµè¯‘，法律出版社2012年版，译åŽè®°ï¼Œç¬¬82页。
å‚è§è‹±1H.LA哈特：法ç†å¦ä¸Žå“²å¦è®ºæ–‡é›†ï¼Œæ”¯æŒ¯é”‹è¯‘，法律出版社2005年版，第281页。
美é²æ ¼ç½—亚狄瑟：法律的逻辑，å”欣伟译，法律出版社2007年版，第1647页。
å‰å¼•ï¼Œè‹çŠå“ˆå…‹æ–‡ï¼Œç¬¬21~22页“所谓'现代逻辑'ä¸Žä¼ ç»Ÿäºšé‡Œå£«å¤šå¾·é€»è¾‘æˆ–ç»é™¢é€»è¾‘çš„ä¸åŒä¹‹å¤„在于，它ä¸å†ä½œä¸ºå·¥å…·ã€æ–¹æ³•è®ºã€æ‰‹æ®µæˆ–艺术，而俨然æˆä¸ºä¸€é—¨ç§‘å¦ã€‚它ä¸å†æ»¡è¶³äºŽç»™å‡ºæ€ç»´è§„律或规定推ç†è§„则。它是'秩åºçš„科å¦'它适用于事物的秩åºï¼Œä¹Ÿé€‚用于æ€ç»´çš„秩åºã€‚â€å‚è§å‰å¼•ï¼Œé˜¿å¾·å‹’主编书，第806407页。
å‚è§æ¦å®å¿—ã€å¼ 海燕：论éžå½¢å¼é€»è¾‘的特性，载陈金钊ç‰ä¸»ç¼–：法律方法（8），山东人民出版社2009年版，第1页。
98，99.哲å¦å®¶æœå¨è®¤ä¸ºï¼Œé€»è¾‘实际上是一个有关ç»éªŒçŽ°è±¡çš„ç†è®ºï¼Œå°±åƒä»»ä½•å…¶ä»–ç»éªŒå‡†åˆ™ä¸€æ ·ï¼Œå¸¸å¸¸å¢žé•¿å’Œæ高。将一ç§æ›´ç»éªŒæ€§çš„ã€æ›´çµæ´»çš„逻辑渗é€åˆ°æ³•å¾‹ä¸ï¼Œæ˜¯æ™ºè¯†çš„需è¦ï¼Œä¹Ÿæ˜¯ç¤¾ä¼šçš„需è¦ã€‚å‚è§ç¾Žçº¦ç¿°æœå¨ï¼šé€»è¾‘方法与法律，载葛洪义主编：法律方法与法律æ€ç»´ï¼ˆ4），法律出版社2007年版，第327页。
ç–评估以åŠè®ºè¯æ€§å¸æ³•æ„è§ï¼ˆargumentativeudicialopinions）的总体趋势ä¸èƒ½è¢«å¿½è§†ã€‚整个西欧国家的å¸æ³•æ ·å¼ä¼¼ä¹Žéƒ½å‘生了改å˜ã€‚å‚è§ç¾Žç®€çŽ›åˆ©äºšé˜¿é›…å°¼ã€é磊æ°ç¼–：转型时期的法律å˜é©ä¸Žæ³•å¾‹æ–‡åŒ–åŽè‹è”国家法律移æ¤çš„审视，é磊æ°ã€å½å°é¾™è¯‘，清åŽå¤§å¦å‡ºç‰ˆç¤¾2011年版，第340页。
å‚è§å‰å¼•ï¼ŒBruceMcleod文。
顾元：衡平å¸æ³•ä¸Žä¸å›½ä¼ 统法律秩åºï¼Œä¸å›½æ”¿æ³•å¤§å¦å‡ºç‰ˆç¤¾2006年版，第221页。
有å¦è€…分æžäº†è¿™æ€ç»´å¯¹äºŽå½“代ä¸å›½æ³•æ²»çš„å±å®³æ€§ï¼šå…¶ï¼Œä¸å›½ä¼ 统法官的实质性æ€ç»´å±žäºŽéžç†æ€§çš„法律æ€ç»´ï¼Œå®ƒå¯¼è‡´æ³•å¾‹æœ¯è¯è´«ä¹ï¼Œç¼ºä¹å…·æœ‰æ™®éæ€§çš„ä¸¥æ ¼çš„æœ¯è¯ï¼›å…¶äºŒï¼Œå®žè´¨æ€§æ€ç»´å¯¼è‡´çš„å¸æ³•å¹³æ°‘化，导致行外人士任æ„干涉èŒä¸šæ³•å®˜çš„活动；其三，å¸æ³•æ´»åŠ¨ä¸è®²ç©¶ä¸¥æ ¼çš„解释与推ç†æŠ€æœ¯ï¼Œå¯¼è‡´æ“…æ–和舞弊之风；其四，åªè€ƒè™‘结果与目的，ä¸è€ƒè™‘过程与手段，把法律的程åºé€šä¿—化为行政化的程åºï¼›å…¶äº”ï¼Œä¼ ç»Ÿæ³•å®˜æ€»æ˜¯å°†æ³•å¾‹ä¸Žäº‹å®žç³…åˆåœ¨èµ·ï¼Œå¯¼è‡´æ³•å¾‹çš„确王伯ç¦ï¼šè®ºæ¦‚念法å¦ï¼Œè½½çŽ‹ä¼¯ç¦ï¼šè¿‘代法律æ€æ½®ä¸Žä¸å›½å›ºæœ‰æ–‡åŒ–，清åŽå¤§å¦å‡ºç‰ˆç¤¾2005年版，第168页。
å‚è§åˆ˜åˆ©æ°‘：在è¯è¨€ä¸ç›˜æ—‹ï¼Œå››å·å¤§å¦å‡ºç‰ˆç¤¾2007年版，第9页。
å‚è§å‰å¼•ï¼Œæˆä¸è‹±ä¹¦ï¼Œç¬¬562页。
å‚è§èƒ¡å‡Œï¼šã€ˆå公书判清明集〉ä¸çš„逻辑问题，载è‹åŠ›ä¸»ç¼–：法律书评（5），北京大å¦å‡ºç‰ˆç¤¾2007年版，第18页。
陈林林在一篇论文ä¸ï¼Œå¯¹é‚£ç§ç”¨â€œå½¢å¼éžç†æ€§â€å逻辑“的用è¯æ¥æ绘ä¸å›½å¤å…¸å¸æ³•çš„看法ä¸ä»¥ä¸ºç„¶ã€‚å‚è§é™ˆæž—æž—å‚è§å‰å¼•èƒ¡å‡Œæ–‡ï¼Œç¬¬27页。
比如，有人通过案例æ示出：å¸æ³•è£åˆ¤å½¢å¼é€»è¾‘推演形æˆçš„å½¢å¼å…¬å¹³çš„判决结果在结论上或者事实上å¯èƒ½æ˜¯éžçœŸå®žçš„或者ä¸å¯æŽ¥å—çš„
This Salon Furniture Hydraulic Massage Bed is truly a very versatile facial table and is ideal for facials, skin care, massage, tattooing, or body piercing that will hold up to years of use. Features also include a heavy duty metal base and hydraulic pump and the bed swivels 360 degrees. We offer OEM and ODM service. You can contact us at any time. Our products comes with one year's guarantee.
Facial Spa Bed, Hydraulic Facial Bed, Hydraulic Facial Bed Sale, Black Hydraulic Facial Bed
TOM SPA BEAUTY SALON EQUIPMENT CO.,LTD , https://www.tomspabeauty.com