论文部分内容阅读
判决理由与判决原因的分离具有某种修辞学上的必然性。首先,任何文本都有一个不同于真实作者的隐合作者,前者代表的只是隐合作者的声音,而并非真实作者意见的彻底披露,即后者的展示。其次,分离还缘于修辞场景的转换,即实现不同的同一。前者的听众是当事人和公众,要实现的是对他们的有效说服;而后者的听众则是法官自己,意在劝说自己做出某个判决。再次,从动机角度出发,前者展现的是伯克修辞学的动机,这是一个语言学概念;而后者展现的则是作者的真实动机,这是一个心理学概念。最后,两者之间只是第二种形式的重复,一种没有同一性基础的“不透明的相似”。因此,司法无所谓说谎。
The reasons for the verdict and the reasons for the verdict have some rhetorical inevitability. First of all, any text has a hidden author different from the true author. The former represents only the hidden author’s voice rather than the complete disclosure of the true author’s opinion, that is, the latter’s presentation. Second, separation is also due to the conversion of rhetorical scenes, that is, to achieve different identities. The former audience is the parties and the public, to achieve effective persuasion; the latter audience is the judge himself, intended to persuade himself to make a verdict. Thirdly, from the perspective of motivation, the former shows the motivation of Burke’s rhetoric. This is a linguistic concept. The latter shows the author’s real motivation. This is a psychological concept. Finally, there is only a second form of repetition between the two, an “opaque similarity” that does not have a basis of identity. Therefore, justice does not matter lying.