RHETORIC OF THE LAWYER AND PHILOSOPHICAL CONVERSATION

The article focuses on the difference between strategic rhetoric and philosophical conversation. It first tries to distinguish between sophistical manipulation and valid strategic argumentation. In order to do that, the author tries to give a new meaning to the old Aristotelian tripartition between logos, ethos, and pathos. Then, he uses Chaim Perelman’s theory of argumentation to show that the standard of rationality in practical reasoning is a specific one. After having clarified the very concept of strategic argumentation, the author distinguishes it from the notion of philosophical conversation. He tries to show that if the latter is completely replaced by the former, the danger exists that victimization and morals “a la carte” will generate a defeat of critical thought.     

限制性损害赔偿制度初探

在现实生活中大量存在加害人只在一定的限额内承担赔偿责任的现象 ,本文称之为限制性损害赔偿。限制性损害赔偿制度具有一定的合理性。损害赔偿责任限额应当由合同或法律直接规定 ,一方因故意或重大过失造成对方损失 ,不得适用限制性赔偿制度。     

宪政的价值构成与宪政的合理性分析

宪政的合理性不仅在于其对权力的正当化和规范化 ,更在于其对正义、民主、自由等价值理念的张扬与坚持 ;前者旨在解说宪政的工具合理性 ,后者则力图以宪政的价值合理性来论证宪政的工具合理性 ,并为宪政实践提供方向性指引。在宪政的价值构成体系内 ,正义具有综合性与绝对性的特质 ,是宪政的第一性价值 ,并构成宪政价值合理性的基础 ;民主、自由等具体价值目标是宪政的第二性价值 ,它们源自于正义且受制于正义 ,并成为宪政价值合理性的证明。