Mythological features of doctrinal legal thinking

封面

如何引用文章

全文:

详细

Based on analyses of well-known specialists’ writings, it is argued in the article, that scientific thinking, including doctrinal legal thinking, cannot but include mythological features, as such thinking goes not only within rational but also within ideal (imaginative) sphere. Remythologization of scientific knowledge becomes active due to move towards postclassic paradigm and researches’ need to achieve holistic vision of researchable objects and at the same time realize base structures supporting thinking process. Realizing of cognitive connection of rational elements and symbolism of myth illuminates occurrence of specific myth-logic in knowledge development which allows to guess truth by means of intuitive mechanisms which, as it was formerly believed, are not involved into scientific thinking. Difference between scientific and mythological thinking do not interfere such types of thinking to coexist in capacity of mutual complementarity, as human thought does not operate independently and imagery is unattainable apart from estimation. The sphere of modern consciousness, including legal, involves specific myth-logic, as such consciousness still contains archetypes of legal subjects, the real science is based on believe in a number of basic premises and ideas (paradigm) and reality is presented at a most abstract level which does not allow to use, in a nuanced way, an abstract-conceptual and logical-demonstrable knowledge. The adopted point of view is exemplified by human rights conception. It is resumed that mythological thinking is not only existing feature of thinking process but substantial resource of new knowledge. Therefore, the mythologic in science is not a fantasy but more like a guessed truth. Demythologization in legal science can be reached by explanation of all unclear and disputable points.

作者简介

Ludmila Glukhareva

Russian State University for the Humanities

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: liglur@mail.ru
SPIN 代码: 1972-2570

Doctor of Legal Sciences, Associated Professor, Head of Department of Theory of Law And Comparative Law

俄罗斯联邦, Moscow

参考

  1. Bart R. Izbranniye raboty: Semiotica. Poetica / Translation from French. Moscow, 1994. 616 p.
  2. Belyakova G. S. Slavyanskaya mifologiya. Moscow, 1995. 239 p.
  3. Vostroknutov V. A. Mifologicheskiy element v sovremennom obschestvennom pravosoznaniyi: thesis for a Candidate Degree in Law Sciences. Мoscow, 2016. 180 p.
  4. Golosovker Ya. E. Logika mifa. Moscow, 1987. 224 p.
  5. Karmin A. S. Intuitsiya // Entsiklopediya po epistemologii I filosofii nauki. Moscow, 2009. P. 306-307.
  6. Kassirer E. Mifologicheskoye mishleniye // Filosofiya simvolicheskikh form. Vol. 2. Moscow, Saint Petersburg, 2001. 280 p.
  7. Klimenko A. I. Osnovniye pravoviye mify v sisteme sovremennoy pravovoy ideologii // Obrazovaniye. Nauka. Nauchniye kadry. 2014. No. 6. P. 16-28.
  8. Kovler A. I. Antropologiya prava: uchebnik. Moscow, 2002. 480 p.
  9. Leshkevich T. G. Filosofiya nauki: traditsii i novatsii: uchebnoye posobiye. Moscow, 2001. 428 p.
  10. Losev A. F. Dialektika mifa / Authors team, under general editorship of A.A. Takho-Godi, V.P. Troitskiy. Moscow, 2001. 558 p.
  11. Malakhov V. P. Mify sovremennoy obschepravovoy teorii: monografiya. Moscow, 2013. 151 p.
  12. Osachenko Yu. S., Polozova I. V. Mif // Entsiklopediya po epistemologii I filosofii nauki. Moscow, 2009. P. 518-520.
  13. Ruland N. Yuridicheskaya antropologiya: uchebnik / Translation from French / Executive editor V.S. Nersesyants. Moscow, 1999. 310 p.
  14. Sotsialnaya antropologiya prava sovremennogo obschestva: monografiya / Edited by I.L. Chestnov. Saint Petersburg, 2006. 248 p.
  15. Tishchenko Yu.V. Rol mifa v formirovanii aksiosfery prava // Aktualniye problemy filosofii prava: pravovaya aksiologiya: mater. mezhdunar. kruglogo stola (Odesa, 9 December 2001) Odesa, 2012. P. 84-87.
  16. Frankfort G., Frankfort G. A. Wilson J., Yakobson T. V preddverii filosofii. Doukhovniye iskaniya drevnego cheloveka / Translation from English. Saint Petersburg, 2001. 314 p.
  17. Hubner K. Istina mifa. Moscow, 1996. 448 p.
  18. Benhabib S. Dignity in Adversity: Human Rights in Troubled Times. Cambridge, 2011. P. 57-76.
  19. Griffin J. First Steps in an Account of Human Rights // European Journal of Philosophy. 2001. Vol. 9. No. 3. P. 306-327.

版权所有 © Glukhareva L.I., 2019

Creative Commons License
此作品已接受知识共享署名-非商业性使用-禁止演绎 4.0国际许可协议的许可。

##common.cookie##