Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Homo Iuridicus Versus Homo Societatis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Law and Life. Why Law?

  • 450 Accesses

Abstract

The heading chosen for this chapter needs explanation. It must be read against the background of the less challenging headings of Chap. 2, ‘The Rule of Law’, and Chap. 3, ‘Law and Society’.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Compare Salinger (1955), p. 47. The image of the roof beam (and of Ares as representing the bridegroom) stem from one or more of Sappho’s poems. See on this the “Cambridge Companion to Greek Mythology,” pp. 20–30.

  2. 2.

    First lines of Sect. 1.2.

  3. 3.

    Section 2.3.

  4. 4.

    See Mak (2017), who refers to Amani Smathers (2014).

  5. 5.

    See further on “know-how” Sect. 4.10.

  6. 6.

    Put together by order of the Byzantine emperor Justinianus in the years 529 through 534 A.D.

  7. 7.

    Tempting is it to use here the words “homo politicus.” But the meaning of this expression, as it can be traced back to the philosophy of Plato, is dubious.

  8. 8.

    In the Sects. 2.7 and 2.8.

  9. 9.

    Faust, line 682–683. My translation: “What you have inherited from your fathers, Make it your own, so as to possess it.”

  10. 10.

    Idem, line 684–685. My translation: “What’s not of use, is a heavy burden, Only what the moment brings about, can be of use.”

  11. 11.

    See on this Sect. 3.4.

  12. 12.

    See Sect. 3.5.

  13. 13.

    See on art versus craft Sect. 5.3.

  14. 14.

    More on creativity in Sect. 5.9.

  15. 15.

    As in Sect. 4.1.

  16. 16.

    As brought forward in Sect. 1.3 with reference to the “vita activa” and the use of the expression “living a life.”

  17. 17.

    I am referring to what is usually called the “new Wittgenstein” or “Wittgenstein II” and the main work from that period, written in the years 1945, entitled “Philosophical Investigations,” in the Bibliography of this book indicated as “Wittgenstein 2001.” The main work from the earlier period, “Tractaus Logico-Philosophicus,” can be found in the Bibliography under Wittgenstein (1999).

  18. 18.

    “Modes of discourse” is not a term Wittgenstein used himself, as far as I know. It is a more recent expression. See f.i. Smith (2003), who recognizes five modes: Narrative, Description, Report, Information, and Argument.

  19. 19.

    Wittgenstein (2001), paragraph (“remark”) 7, last sentence.

  20. 20.

    Wittgenstein (2001), paragraph (“remark”) 31, 33, 80–82, etc.

  21. 21.

    In this essay I mention in particular Lyotard (1984), p. 10 (my Sect. 4.9). See also Pavlakos (2007), pp. 35–38. For the connection to social studies and related issues Potter (1996).

  22. 22.

    In the same vein Hannah Arendt who suggests a link between birth and speech as corresponding human conditions, related to “action as beginning” and “plurality.” See Arendt (1998), p. 175 ff. p. 176 (“second birth”) and p. 178 in particular. More on Hannah Arendt in Sect. 1.3 of this book.

  23. 23.

    See further on law as a tool Sect. 4.10 hereafter.

  24. 24.

    In Sects. 2.2 and 2.10.

  25. 25.

    Rawls (1971), p. 8.

  26. 26.

    The content of this section is for a substantial part taken from Van Schilfgaarde (2016), paragraph 20.

  27. 27.

    See on “modes of discourse” Smith (2003).

  28. 28.

    See on “inner dialogue” the last lines of Sect. 3.5 on Hegel.

  29. 29.

    See my remarks on this in Sect. 2.5.

  30. 30.

    In the double sense of “artistic activity” and “craft.” See Sect. 5.3 hereafter.

  31. 31.

    The idea that law can be elegant stems from the days of Cicero (106-43 B.C), who had great renown as an elegant speaker. It finds is its expression in the wording “elegantia uiris,” a relatively modern neologism, seldom or not at all found in Roman text of those days. See on “elegantia iuris” Stein (1961) and Ankum (1970).

  32. 32.

    See Hegel (1807), p. vi ff.

  33. 33.

    See on this in particular Sect. 2.11.

  34. 34.

    The French term “traduction” probably derives from “traducere,” leading across.

  35. 35.

    Ricoeur (2006), p. 4 and 8, both passages in the essay entitled “Translation as challenge and source of happiness.” According to Ricoeur the happiness can be found by the translator in what Ricoeur “likes to call” “linguistic hospitality,” p. 10.

  36. 36.

    In Sect. 2.10.

  37. 37.

    An expression I found in Ricoeur (2006) (p. 24).

  38. 38.

    Likewise Ricoeur (2006), p. 25.

  39. 39.

    “Substantive” refers to the classical notion of “substantia,” an expression used—in different shades—for the essence or substance of an idea, as opposed to the “accidentia” or “accidentiae,” the accidental aspects.

  40. 40.

    Think of the powerful but derailed monologues of Adolf Hitler during the period he was in charge in Germany in the twentieth century, as documented during that period in the propaganda film “Triumph des Willens” of Leni Riefenstahl.

  41. 41.

    See Sects. 5.2 through 5.6.

  42. 42.

    A comparable view, far more elaborated on the one hand, but restricted to “Justice as Translation” on the other, can be found in White (1990).

  43. 43.

    In particular in his piece “Translation as a source of happiness” in Ricoeur (2006). Apart from “happiness” one finds “mediator,” “chiasmus,” “parturition,” and “reproduction of a work of art” to clarify his argument.

  44. 44.

    As the French say in a slightly different context: “Du choc des opinions jaillit la lumière.”

  45. 45.

    Or perhaps the text writer or the translator in view of a next edition.

  46. 46.

    In Dutch: “zelfbehoud,” “overgave,” and “zelfverlies.” Ricoeur uses the expression “some salvaging and some acceptance of a loss,” Ricoeur (2006), p. 3/4.

  47. 47.

    Ricoeur (2006), p. 11.

  48. 48.

    Steiner (1998).

  49. 49.

    This short indication of my views on “misunderstanding” can be traced back to Van Schilfgaarde Sr. (1956).

  50. 50.

    In the external mode, communication as translation in the classic sense, the translator has a double role. He listens to the original author and speaks to the reader of the translation.

  51. 51.

    Lyotard (1984). Jean-Francois Lyotard was before his death in 1999 professor of philosophy at the University of Paris at Vincennes, France.

  52. 52.

    Lyotard (1984), p. 7.

  53. 53.

    As explained in Sect. 4.4.

  54. 54.

    Lyotard (1984), p. 4, foot notes are omitted.

  55. 55.

    Lyotard (1984). p. 18 ff.

  56. 56.

    Sections 1.2 and 4.5.

  57. 57.

    Section 1.1.

  58. 58.

    See Lyotard (1984), pp. 18–21.

  59. 59.

    In Sect. 2.10.

  60. 60.

    Lyotard (1984), p. 10, 16, 25, 57, 59.

  61. 61.

    Compare Sect. 4.1.

  62. 62.

    See Sect. 6.2.

  63. 63.

    The “Open Letter to the European Commission artificial Intelligence and robotics,” can be found under www.robotics-openletter.eu.

  64. 64.

    See on this Ferguson (2017), p. 400. On the conflict with Roman Catholic authorities p. 83. See also Sect. 5.7 of this book.

  65. 65.

    Section 4.3.

  66. 66.

    “Existence” has a specific “existential” meaning in the expression “existence-linked justice.” See Sect. 2.11, where I asked attention for the difference between “institutional justice” and “existence-linked justice.”

  67. 67.

    I borrow this term from Potter (1996), p. 150 ff.

  68. 68.

    In Sect. 4.4.

  69. 69.

    See Sect. 2.10.

  70. 70.

    Kelsen (1945), p. 110 ff.

  71. 71.

    Hart (1994), in terms of “rule of recognition,” p. 100 and see note on p. 292.

  72. 72.

    Compare Dworkin (1977), p. 41, in his discussion of Hart’s “rule of recognition.”

  73. 73.

    See on language moves my reference to Wittgenstein in Sect. 4.4.

  74. 74.

    “Law and the Modern Mind.” See on this exposition Tamanaha (2010), p. 69.

  75. 75.

    See on this Tamanaha (2010), p. 27 ff.

  76. 76.

    Tamanaha (2010), p. 84 ff.

  77. 77.

    Tamanaha (2010), p. 33.

  78. 78.

    See for the debate in The Netherlands Van Schilfgaarde (2016), p. 69 ff.

  79. 79.

    Sections 2.2 and 2.10.

References

  • Amani Smathers R (2014) The 21st-century T-Shaped lawyer. Law Pract Mag 40(4), www.americanbar.org

  • Ankum JA (1970) Elegantia iuris. In: Plus est en vous, Opstellen aangeboden aan Prof. Mr. A. Pitlo, H.D. Tjeenk Willink & Zoon, Haarlem, 1979, no translation available

    Google Scholar 

  • Arendt H (1998) The human condition, Original edition, 2nd edn. Chicago Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R (1977) Taking rights seriously. Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson N (2017) The square and the tower. Alan Lane

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart HLA (1994) The concept of law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegel GWF (1807) Phenomenology of spirit, translated from German by A.V. Miller, with analysis of the text and foreword by J.N. Findlay. Oxford University Press, 1977. Original German title: Phänomenologie des Geistes

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen H (1945) General theory of law and state. Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyotard J-F (1984) The postmodern condition: a report on knowledge, translation from the French, University of Minnesota 1984. First edition in French: La condition postmoderne: rapport sur le savoir, Les Editions de Minuit, 1979

    Google Scholar 

  • Mak E (2017) The T-shaped lawyer and beyond. Eleven International Publishing, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavlakos G (2007) Our knowledge of the law. Hart, Portland

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter J (1996) Representing reality. Sage Publications London-Thousand Oaks-New Delhi 1996. Reprinted many times

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice, Revised edn. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur P (2006) On translation (trans: Brennan E). Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon. ‘Sur la traduction’ is the title of the original publication in French, Bayard, Paris, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  • Salinger JD (1955) Raise high the Roof Beam, Carpenters, and Seymour-an introduction. Penguin Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith C (2003) Modes of discourse: the local structure of texts. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein P (1961) Elegance in law. Law Q Rev 77:242–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner G (1998) After Babel: aspects of language and translation. Oxford Paperbacks, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamanaha BZ (2010) Beyond the FORMALIST-REALIST divide. Princeton University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Schilfgaarde P Sr (1956) Gronden van misverstand, Boucher, The Hague, 1956. No translation available

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Schilfgaarde P (2016) Peter van Schilfgaarde, De redelijkheid en billijkheid in het ondernemingsecht. Kluwer. No translation available

    Google Scholar 

  • White JB (1990) Justice as translation. University of Chicago Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein L (1999) Tractatus Logico-philosophicus (trans: Ogden CK). Dover Publications, with Introduction by Bertrand Russel. Original German text published in 1922

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein L (2001) Philosophical investigations, German text, with a Revised English 3rd edn (trans: Anscombe GEM). Blackwell Publishing. First edition published in 1953, Second edition in 1958. Original German text written in the years 1945 thru 1949

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Hague, The Netherlands

    Peter van Schilfgaarde

Authors
  1. Peter van Schilfgaarde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

van Schilfgaarde, P. (2019). Homo Iuridicus Versus Homo Societatis. In: Law and Life. Why Law?. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01848-1_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01848-1_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-01847-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01848-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation