法学研究中的认识论问题

我国法学理论正面临“现代”与“后现代”的双重压力。后现代思潮主要知识进路和思想工具就是对理性的批判和否定。传统法学理论之所以没有足够的能力回应后现代的挑战,其原因也就在于对作为认识主体的人把握作为认识对象的法律的理性能力缺乏充分的批判和论证。由于我国传统法学理论的思维范式发源于知识论思想传统的合法性,所以,后现代思潮实质上是对作为传统法学理论之基础的知识论思想传统进行挑战。因此,若要充分回应这一挑战,就必须实现法学研究范式的转化,路径之一就是将人从单纯的法律认识主体转化为法律实践主体。     

刑事证据制度与认识论——兼与误区论、法律真实论、相对真实论商榷

辩证唯物主义认识论是我国刑事证据制度的理论基础。文章反驳了否认认识论对证据制度起指导作用的“误区论”。认为刑事诉讼证明的目的是达到诉讼客观真实。客观真实是绝对真实与相对真实的统一。文章不赞同用法律真实或相对真实代替客观真实的观点 ,认为相对真实论的要害是不承认能够证实犯罪人是谁 ,这必然会导致错判。文章坚持我国法定的“犯罪事实清楚 ,证据确实充分”的排他性证明标准 ,不赞成采用英美的“排除合理怀疑”的证明标准 ,指出“排除合理怀疑”的哲学基础是经验主义。文章分析了设立刑事证据规则的目的、功能 ,认为其目的和功能是多元的 ,而发现客观事实是其首要目标 ,并指出 :认为认识论会导致刑讯逼供的观点是错误的。民事诉讼证明、行政诉讼证明不同于刑事诉讼证明 ,但也应当以认识论为指导。     

Naturalism in Epistemology and the Philosophy of Law

In this paper, I challenge an influential understanding of naturalization according to which work on traditional problems in the philosophy of law should be replaced with sociological or psychological explanations of how judges decide cases. W.V. Quine famously proposed the ‘naturalization of epistemology’. In a prominent series of papers and a book, Brian Leiter has raised the intriguing idea that Quine’s naturalization of epistemology is a useful model for philosophy of law. I examine Quine’s naturalization of epistemology and Leiter’s suggested parallel and argue that the parallel does not hold up. Even granting Leiter’s substantive assumption that the law is indeterminate, there is no philosophical confusion or overreaching in the legal case that is parallel to the philosophical overreaching of Cartesian foundationalism in epistemology. Moreover, if we take seriously Leiter’s analogy, the upshot is almost the opposite of what Leiter suggests. The closest parallel in the legal case to Quine’s position would be the rejection of the philosophical positions that lead to the indeterminacy thesis.     

Language,Understanding and Reality: A Study of Their Relation in a Foundational Indian Metaphysical Debate

Journal of Indian Philosophy - This paper engages with Johaness Bronkhorst’s recognition of a “correspondence principle” as an underlying assumption of Nāgārjuna’s...     

Hate Speech and the Epistemology of Justice

In ‘The Harm in Hate Speech’ Waldron’s most interesting and ground-breaking contribution lies in a distinctive epistemological role he assigns to hate speech legislation: it is necessary for assurance of justice, and thus for justice itself. He regards public social recognition of what is owed to citizens as a public good, contributing to basic dignity and social standing of citizens. His claim that hate speech in the public social environment damages assurance of justice has wider implications, I argue: for hate speech conducted in private; for pornography; and indeed for any speech that thwarts knowledge of what justice requires.     

马克思主义认识论与思想政治教育现代化建构

马克思主义认识论参与思想政治教育现代化建构的实践,它对思想政治教育现代化建构的塑造作用主要表现为把握教育规律,揭示教育本质,确立教育目标三个方面。新时代思想政治教育沿着马克思主义认识论方向前行,需要掌握其现代化建构的运行机制,探寻其本质,在构建人类命运共同体中深化思想政治教育目标。     

Implications of Indeterminacy: Naturalism in Epistemology and the Philosophy of Law II

In a circulated but heretofore unpublished 2001 paper, I argued that Leiter’s analogy to Quine’s “naturalization of epistemology” does not do the philosophical work Leiter suggests. I revisit the issues in this new essay. I first show that Leiter’s replies to my arguments fail. Most significantly, if – contrary to the genuinely naturalistic reading of Quine that I advanced – Quine is understood as claiming that we have no vantage point from which to address whether belief in scientific theories is ever justified, it would not help Leiter’s parallel. Given Leiter’s way of drawing the parallel, the analogous position in the legal case would be not the Legal Realists’ indeterminacy thesis, but the very different position that we have no vantage point from which to address whether legal decisions can ever be justified. I then go on to address the more important question of whether the indeterminacy thesis, if true, would support any replacement of important legal philosophical questions with empirical ones. Although Ronald Dworkin has argued against the indeterminacy thesis, if he were wrong on this issue, it would not in any way suggest that the questions with which Dworkin is centrally concerned cannot fruitfully be addressed. The indeterminacy thesis is a bone of contention in an ordinary philosophical debate between its proponents and Dworkin. Of course, if the determinacy thesis were true, no one should try to show that it is false, but this triviality lends no support to the kind of replacement proposal that Leiter proposes. I conclude with some general reflections on naturalism and philosophical methodology.     

Self-refutation in Indian philosophy

Journal of Indian Philosophy -     

Shifting Boundaries: Pramāna and Ontology in Dharmakīrti’s Epistemology

Journal of Indian Philosophy -     

认识论在诉讼证明问题上的适用

认识论在诉讼证明问题上是有效的 ,但其合理使命限于阐明诉讼证明的本性如何 ,以及由此本性所规定的诉讼证明的方法 ,诉讼证明的本性及其方法规定了诉讼证明可能达到的程度。诉讼证明的认识论因素规定了诉讼证明不包含任何绝对客观的规定在自身之中 ,所能达到的只是使人建立确信 ,作为政策选择的证明标准只能在此前提下予以设定     

Secularism in the Indian Context

Indian constitutional framers sought to tie their new state to ideas of modernity and liberalism by creating a government that would ensure citizens' rights while also creating the conditions for democratic citizenship. Balancing these two goals has been particularly challenging with regard to religion, as exemplified by the emergence of a peculiarly Indian understanding of secularism which requires the nonestablishment of religion but not the separation of religion and state. Supporters argue that this brand of secularism is best suited to the particular social and historical circumstances of independent India. This article suggests that the desire to separate religion and state is integral to any understanding of secularism and that, consequently, the Indian state neither is nor was meant to be secular. However, Indian secularists correctly identify the Indian state's distinctive approach to religion‐state relations as appropriate to the Indian context and in keeping with India's constitutional goals.     

在语境中培养学生创造性的语言交际能力

要在语境中培养学生创造性的语言交际能力教师应从三个方面着手.加强语言知识教学,在语境中培养学生创造性的语言能力;加强说能训练,在语境中培养学生创造性的社会语言能力;加强写作训练,创设语境培养学生创造性的话语能力.