法律适用中的概念思维与类型思维:一个比较研究  

Conceptual Thinking and Typological Thinking:A Comparative Analysis

作　　者：王建芳[1] 陈可馨 WANG Jianfang;CHEN Kexin(School of Humanities,China University of Political Science and Law,Beijing 102249,China)

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学人文学院,北京102249

出　　处：《湖南科技大学学报(社会科学版)》2025年第1期35-43,共9页Journal of Hunan University of Science and Technology(Social Science Edition)

基　　金：北京市社会科学基金项目(23ZXB005)。

摘　　要：从法律文本的角度看,类型通常是通过概念来表达的。类型不是与概念、命题和推理相并列的思维形式。概念思维和类型思维的区分必须从语用层面展开。从法律适用的角度看,概念思维和类型思维相互补充。概念思维更多地针对简单案件,类型思维更多地针对疑难案件,二者的区分标准在于是否要进行意义或价值的考量。由此看来,考夫曼的类型理论过分否定了概念确定性的一面,把所有的概念思维都转化为类型思维,有失偏颇。通过有关探索和争议的分析可以表明,概念思维和类型思维是两种不同类型的法律思维,它们具有不同的适用范围,指向不同的法律适用方法,解决不同的法律问题。From the perspective of legal texts,types are usually expressed through concepts.As such,types are not forms of thinking alongside concepts,propositions and reasoning.The distinction between conceptual and typological thinking must be explored from a pragmatic perspective.From the point of view of legal application,conceptual thinking and typological thinking complement each other.Conceptual thinking is suited for simple cases,while typological thinking is suited for hard cases,and the criterion for distinguishing them is whether the consideration of value is necessary.Thus,it can be seen that Kaufmann's typology theory overly denies the determinacy of concepts and transforms all conceptual thinking into typological thinking,which is biased.Based on the above analysis,it is clear that conceptual thinking and typological thinking are two distinct types of legal thinking,which have different scopes of application,different methods of legal application,and address different legal problems.

关 键 词：概念 类型 概念思维 类型思维 法律适用 

分 类 号：B81[哲学宗教—逻辑学]