Abstract
This paper focuses on legal reasoning, arguing that although methodological theories are important, they are not enough to explain how to reason in law. In fact, because the different philosophical perspectives vary so significantly in their ability to resolve legal conflicts, when a less “adapted” perspective decides a legal question, the results can be disastrous. Thus, this paper inaugurates a new attitude, stating that a general philosophical perspective is the only way out. Relying on a metatheoretical postmodern approach, it argues that logic, analysis, argumentation and hermeneutics are complementary theories that offer a unique perception of law. It concludes that the approach proposed makes possible not only a comprehensive view of the way legal reasoning behaves, but more than this, a proportionate flexibility to both civil and common law systems. Keywords: Paraconsistent Logic; Metatheoretical Postmodern Approach; Metatheoretical Perspective; Paraconsistent Deontic Logic; Ontological Hermeneutics
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
