據法闡釋與辯思解釋的融貫－－中國語境下的法治思維方式塑造

The Coherence of Dogmatic Interpretation and Dialectical Interpretation: The Shape of the Rule of Law Thinking Mindset in China

據法闡釋的思維方式奠基於形式邏輯，其構成法治思維的基本特徵。有學者認為，法治思維與辯證思維難以相容，是反法治或瓦解法治的思維方式。能印證這一判斷的是，後現代法學思潮用辯思方法論證了法律的可廢止性及法律推理的不可能性，進而提出法治危機論。可後現代法學重解構輕建構，反而是傳統的基礎法學提出了法律論證、實質推理、法律淵源等外部徵用的補救方法。這些方法運用辯思解釋打開了法律的封閉性，同時從完善法律推理的大前提來展示法治命題的可能性，這些外部徵用的法律論證方法是辯思解釋的組成部分。需要指出的是，雖然純粹的辯思無法直接推進法治，但法治思維的塑造離不開以辯證法為基礎的辯思。與法治中國相匹配的法治思維，需要融貫據法闡釋與辯證思維，持法達變是其基本形式。

Interpretation according to law bases on the formal logic, and clarity is the basic characteristic of the rule of law thinking. There is view that rule of law thinking cannot compatible with dialectical thinking, and dialectical thinking is a mode of thinking that anti-rule of law or dismantles the rule of law. This judgment is confirmed by the fact that postmodern jurisprudence uses dialectical thinking to argue for the abrogability of law and the impossibility of legal reasoning, and then proposes a crisis theory of the rule of law. But postmodern jurisprudence only deconstructs but not constructs, instead, traditional basic jurisprudence comes up with the rescue methods of legal argumentation, substantive reasoning, legal sources and other external expropriation. Although these methods use dialectical interpretation to open up the closeness of law, they demonstrate the possibility of the proposition of rule of law from the premise of perfecting legal reasoning. These methods of external expropriation are part and parcel of dialectical interpretation. It is only that in the past thinking, dialectical interpretation was not placed in a fundamental position. It needs to be realized that while pure dialectic cannot advance the rule of law, rule of law thinking cannot be shaped without dialectic-based dialectic. The rule of law thinking that matches with the rule of law in China needs to integrate legal interpretation and dialectical thinking, and holding the law to achieve change is its basic form.