Spelling suggestions: "subject:"talaktsteori"" "subject:"talaktsteorin""
1 |
Det starkaste beviset? : En retorisk studie av juridiska erkännandens övertygande krafter / The queen of evidence? : A rhetorical study of the persuasive powers in judicial confessionsJedestav, Martin January 2021 (has links)
This master thesis asks the question “Why are confessions so convincing?”. To provide an answer, I use Austin’s speech act theory to investigate how confessions work within the context of Swedish law. This model was fit for purpose; however, the theory lacks a temporal dimension necessary to understand the mechanisms in play when confessions convince someone. To account for this discrepancy, I use Derek Beach’s process tracing. Given the sometimes-strained relation between law and rhetoric I completed extensive reviews of literature on judicial rhetoric, both historically and contemporary. The current literature suggests that Swedish scholars of law use rhetorical theories more often than expected, however, Swedish scholars of rhetoric seem to interact with law a lot less. One of the findings of this thesis is that a rhetorical perspective, and the perspective from someone outside the field of law, may add significantly to understandings of confessions. Confessions are culturally important and often misunderstood, initially perceived as an unavoidable part of human nature. However, as discussed in this text, confessions are not rooted in human nature, but in cultural conventions, with a historical tradition dating back to the Middle Ages. When researching confessions in general, this paper identifies tensions between three kinds of confessions: religious confessions, juridical confessions, and psychotherapeutic confessions. Ten Swedish judges were interviewed, and 1599 court decisions were analyzed for this paper. Through this material an agreed upon ritual in which confessions become convincing appears. This ritual is however not the only reason why confession become convincing. Confessions can be detailed, coherent, and nuanced, which makes them more believable. The power to convince through confession consists of a complex net of different mechanisms, some based in the law system, and some based in rhetoric.
|
2 |
Iterabilitet, upprepning och permanens : En kritisk analys av debatten mellan Derrida och Searle / Iterability, repetition and permanence : A critical analysis of the debate between Derrida and SearleGardfors, Johan January 2009 (has links)
<p>The essay seeks to clarify some of the decisive but often obscured issues in the famous debate between Jacques Derrida and Jonn F. Searle. The debate commenced in 1977 with the publication in <em>Glyph</em> of Derrida’s lecture <em>Signature Event Context</em> from -71, followed by Searle’s <em>Reiterating the Differences</em>. A Reply to Derrida and subsequently Derrida’s reply <em>Limited Inc a b c …</em> which encouraged Searle to renew his criticism. I situate the debate within a philosophical context where questions of the aim of philosophy and the nature of philosophical writing cannot be excluded from the specific topics that are being discussed. Starting from Derrida’s controversial reading of Austin, where a few key points of criticism are placed under scrutiny, I proceed to problems of writing and communication where special attention is paid to the concept of iterability and Searle’s remark that this has been confounded with permanence in Derrida’s exposition. The concept of ”writing” is examined as a crux in the understanding of the two philosophers. And iterability is then found to be derieved from the theorization of absence in relation to that very concept. Iterability designates an essential possibility of absence and implies the possibility of every mark to be grafted onto new contexts of significance. Thus it draws the consequences of a general repeatability, within which difference is underscored as the inevitable outcome. The last section of the essay relates to the phenomenological project of investigating the genesis of idealization and traces the emergence of iterability in Derrida’s further writings on Husserl, where repetition can be perceived of as constitutive for ideality and thus for identity. Bearing on this observation, the type/token-distinction, proposed by Searle to undo the problem of iterability, is subjected to further inquiry and linked to the process of idealization, within which iterability is revealed to have a temporal relevance that also affects the notion of permanence. The claim is then made that iterability should be understood as a fundamentally ambiguous phenomenon through its dual relation to identity and difference. Its utility is found to be hinged upon the status of the possible. Finally, the question of iterability as concept is posed, which entails its interdependence upon notions of dissemination and différance.</p>
|
3 |
Iterabilitet, upprepning och permanens : En kritisk analys av debatten mellan Derrida och Searle / Iterability, repetition and permanence : A critical analysis of the debate between Derrida and SearleGardfors, Johan January 2009 (has links)
The essay seeks to clarify some of the decisive but often obscured issues in the famous debate between Jacques Derrida and Jonn F. Searle. The debate commenced in 1977 with the publication in Glyph of Derrida’s lecture Signature Event Context from -71, followed by Searle’s Reiterating the Differences. A Reply to Derrida and subsequently Derrida’s reply Limited Inc a b c … which encouraged Searle to renew his criticism. I situate the debate within a philosophical context where questions of the aim of philosophy and the nature of philosophical writing cannot be excluded from the specific topics that are being discussed. Starting from Derrida’s controversial reading of Austin, where a few key points of criticism are placed under scrutiny, I proceed to problems of writing and communication where special attention is paid to the concept of iterability and Searle’s remark that this has been confounded with permanence in Derrida’s exposition. The concept of ”writing” is examined as a crux in the understanding of the two philosophers. And iterability is then found to be derieved from the theorization of absence in relation to that very concept. Iterability designates an essential possibility of absence and implies the possibility of every mark to be grafted onto new contexts of significance. Thus it draws the consequences of a general repeatability, within which difference is underscored as the inevitable outcome. The last section of the essay relates to the phenomenological project of investigating the genesis of idealization and traces the emergence of iterability in Derrida’s further writings on Husserl, where repetition can be perceived of as constitutive for ideality and thus for identity. Bearing on this observation, the type/token-distinction, proposed by Searle to undo the problem of iterability, is subjected to further inquiry and linked to the process of idealization, within which iterability is revealed to have a temporal relevance that also affects the notion of permanence. The claim is then made that iterability should be understood as a fundamentally ambiguous phenomenon through its dual relation to identity and difference. Its utility is found to be hinged upon the status of the possible. Finally, the question of iterability as concept is posed, which entails its interdependence upon notions of dissemination and différance.
|
Page generated in 0.0458 seconds