第418页 Postscript

分享这段话其实主要是觉得菲尼斯也是一个超有个性和激情的学者。

上下文是，在本书的第二版里菲尼斯加了一个附言(postscript)，对自出版以来他人的批评作个回应。

其中一个批评是针对的是自然法的目的：在编排这本书的时候，作者把第一章用作批判法律实证主义为代表的描述性法理学，并认为，任何有意义(point)的描述性法理学都离不开涉及规范性的概念构建(conceptual formation)，而自然法正好可以为这种概念构建提供一个判断什么是重要(因此应该被囊括进该概念的)内在视角(p19)。

但有些人就会觉得(naive!)那自然法就是给法律实证主义研究铺路的咯，对此，菲尼斯说：
And putting the secondary first, in the book's order of treatment, had the bad side effect of encouraging the myth (or déformation professionelle of believing) that the default position in jurisprudence or legal philosophy is legal positivism, and that anyone who upholds law's appropriate positivity is 'conceding' or 'admitting' something rightly affirmed by positivists—as if the loose cluster of positions labelled by textbooks 'positivism' were not (as it is) a latecomer to the philosophy of law, with not too many important discoveries to its name and a vast capacity and willingness to misread the philosophical tradition from which it emerged.

我觉得这句话挺"串爆"的。