Abstract
Is it the task of legal semiotics or the legal philosophers to define legal semiotics? For the philosopher of law, the question recalls the distinction between philosophers’ philosophy of law and legal scholars’ philosophy of law. The thesis that the paper argues is that a semiotic legal perspective can also be sought from the analysis of anthropological knowledge on the origin of the social bond and society, implying a social and institutional theory of the mind. In the first paragraph, the search for a different kind of rationality emerges from a semiotician, Jürgen Trabant, who analyses semiotically the thought of a rhetorician and philosopher of law, Giambattista Vico. In the second paragraph, the anthropological notion of social bond emerges from the debate on the relationship between the idea of the gift and that of exchange. In the third paragraph, the analysis of the legal notion of thirdness recognizes the central role of myth and fiction in the configuration of the civil world and sign, returning to Vico’s critical view of the philosophy of language as an institution of society.
Highlights
Keywords Sematology · Thirdness · Rationality · Rhetorics · Currency · Justice. Is it the task of legal semiotics or of the legal philosophers to define legal semiotics? For the philosopher of law, the question recalls the distinction between philosophers’ philosophy of law and legal scholars’ philosophy of law [8]. It might seem in the contemporary debate that legal semiotics, generally recognized, is that of semiotics and the non-legal, unorthodox, that of legal philosophers’ philosophy of law
The thesis that the paper argues is that a legal-semiotic perspective can be sought from the analysis of anthropological knowledge on the origin of the social bond and society, implying a social and institutional theory of the mind
Vico discovers mythos under the logos, the image under the reason [25, 34]: he is the founder of the legal aesthetics conceiving the human thought as an incorporated process of semiosis. This difference is the reason why Vico’s sematology could be an illegal semiotic, because he opposes the main tradition of legal vision of sign, from Aristoteles to Descartes, and the main tradition of legal positivism starting with Hobbes, trying to create a new science (Scienza Nuova)
Summary
Is it the task of legal semiotics or of the legal philosophers to define legal semiotics? For the philosopher of law, the question recalls the distinction between philosophers’ philosophy of law and legal scholars’ philosophy of law [8]. The analysis of the legal notion of thirdness shows how, through the path of anthropological and economic knowledge, it is possible, through the reference to Vico’s thought, a legal rhetorical vision of reasonableness as prudence proper to law. This vision recognizes the central role of myth and fiction in the configuration of the civil world and sign, returning to Vico’s critical view of the philosophy of language as an institution of society
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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 callMore From: International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique
Disclaimer: 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.
