MICHEL VILLEY Y LA CUESTIÓN DE LA DIALÉCTICA JURÍDICA - DOI: 10.12818/P.0304-2340.2014v64p301
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESUMENMichel Villey (1914-1988), filósofo francés y partidario del «derecho natural». Este artículo examina, de manera crítica, uno de los conceptos claves de su teoría: La dialéctica jurídica. En principio, analiza el fundamento de esta teoría en la etimología filosófica de la noción de dialéctica; en segundo lugar, examina la utilización por parte del autor de las obras de Aristóteles y de Santo-Tomás, con el fin de llenar de substancia el concepto de dialéctica antes mencionado; en tercer lugar, estudia el empleo de dicha noción por parte de Villey para justificar el derecho natural. En una cuarta y última parte, se moviliza la filosofía del lenguaje para criticar y reorientar la noción de dialéctica hacia una concepción más moderna y comunicacional del derecho. PALABRAS CLAVE: Filosofía jurídica. Filosofía del derecho. Michel Villey (1914-1988). Teoría del derecho natural. Teoría moderna del derecho. Teoría comunicacional del derecho. ABSTRACTMichel Villey (1914-1988), French philosopher and advocate of natural law. This article critically examines one of the key concepts of his theory: legal dialectics. First, it analyses the foundation of his theory in the context of the philosophical-etymological origins of the notion of dialectics. Secondly, the article explores how the author addresses the works of Aristotle and Saint Thomas, so as to substantiate the aforesaid concept of dialectics. Thirdly, it studies the author’s theoretical use of dialectics to justify natural law. Lastly, the article explores relevant philosophy of language frameworks in order to criticize and offer a new direction to the notion of dialectics, toward a more modern and communicative conception of law.KEYWORDS: Legal philosophy. Philosophy of law. Michel Villey (1914-1988). Legal theory of natural law. Modernist Law Theory. Communicative theory of law.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".