Understanding and interpretation seem to be two distinct concepts.
Wittgenstein claimed that understanding a rule, following it, need not require interpretation
T. Endicott and D. Patterson have formulated a similar approach, modified to fit the specificity of legal reasoning,
Endicott defines interpretation in general as: ‘a creative reasoning process for finding grounds for answering a question as to the meaning of some object’
The direct consequence of this formulation is that if there is no question as to the meaning of the object, then there is no need to interpret.
Consequently, according to Endicott, interpretation has three features. It is (i) of an object because it depends on true propositions referring to the object. It is (ii) creative as it ascribes to the object a meaning that someone else might dispute. Finally, it is (iii) rational because there can be reasons for arriving at an interpretation
Analogously, legal reasoning means finding rational support for legal conclusions. It is not just about identifying the content of the law, but also reasoning as to ‘what is to be done according to the law’
Consequently, legal interpretation will be: of an object, creative and rational. However, it will also be giving a rule for the application of the law and it will be articulate or propositional. Although both understanding the law and legal interpretation are parts of legal reasoning, understanding the law need not involve interpretation:
To sum up, understanding does not always involve interpretation
Wittgenstein claimed that understanding a rule, following it, need not require interpretation
T. Endicott and D. Patterson have formulated a similar approach, modified to fit the specificity of legal reasoning,
Endicott defines interpretation in general as: ‘a creative reasoning process for finding grounds for answering a question as to the meaning of some object’
The direct consequence of this formulation is that if there is no question as to the meaning of the object, then there is no need to interpret.
Consequently, according to Endicott, interpretation has three features. It is (i) of an object because it depends on true propositions referring to the object. It is (ii) creative as it ascribes to the object a meaning that someone else might dispute. Finally, it is (iii) rational because there can be reasons for arriving at an interpretation
Analogously, legal reasoning means finding rational support for legal conclusions. It is not just about identifying the content of the law, but also reasoning as to ‘what is to be done according to the law’
Consequently, legal interpretation will be: of an object, creative and rational. However, it will also be giving a rule for the application of the law and it will be articulate or propositional. Although both understanding the law and legal interpretation are parts of legal reasoning, understanding the law need not involve interpretation:
Sometimes, gaining an understanding requires a creative intellectual process of finding reasons for an answer to a question (which might have been answered differently) as to the meaning of the object. Some understanding does not require that process. The distinction is well signaled by using the term ‘interpretation’ for that process.
To sum up, understanding does not always involve interpretation
No comments:
Post a Comment