本篇论文目录导航：

【题目】中国古代的法律逻辑思想探究 
【绪论  第一章】中国逻辑存在论 
【第二章】中外逻辑的比较 
【第三章】有关法律推理的基本内容  
【第四章】中国古代逻辑在古代司法实践中的表现 
【结论/参考文献】我国古代的法律推理案例研究结论与参考文献 



　　内容摘要

　　亚里士多德逻辑与中国墨家逻辑和印度因明逻辑并称世界三大逻辑传统，不过，随着科学、语言以及数学等学科的发展，亚里士多德逻辑在西方文化传统孕育下发展成参天大树，引起我思考的是：我们不能因为亚氏逻辑及其在世界范围内占据主导地位，就用它作为衡量其他文化传统是否具有逻辑特征的唯一标准。不能用这一标准去审视中国古代的思想史，从而得出中国古代无逻辑的结论。诚然，“逻辑”一词是舶来词，但这并不是只能用来指称西方逻辑，它也可以用来指谓任何国家或地区对逻辑真理有所追求的学术思想。中国古代，尤其是春秋战国时期发展起来的墨家思想，就蕴含有丰富的对逻辑真理的真知灼见，它是中国古代逻辑存在的明证。

　　法律推理是法官在司法过程中，根据确认的案件事实和法律规定，得出具体案件的判处结论的思维活动，古今莫不如是。正所谓物质基础决定上层建筑，任何思维活动，包括法律推理在内，都无法脱离其所处的时代环境，都受到当时所处的环境制约。这是显而易见的事实。但是，现在的有些学者，却因为用当下的法律推理理论去解读中国古代的司法实践活动，从而得出中国古代没有法律推理的结论。下文中，笔者也将以中国古代的实际案例为例，结合中国古代的逻辑思想进行解读，而不是以现在的思想，从而意图探寻出中国古代判官们是否在有意识的运用法律推理，其内容为何。

　　本文由绪论、正文、结语三部分组成。

　　其中绪论部分论述了笔者选题的原因。

　　正文大致可分为三部分，其内容简介如下：第一部分，阐述作者为何是坚定的中国逻辑存在论的支持者，并对中西方逻辑做出必要的比较分析；第二部分，对当前的法律推理的基本内容加以梳理，其中的争议部分予以搁置，采用相对成熟的确定的说法，为下文铺垫；第三部分，以中国古代判犊为依据，以中国古代的逻辑思想为指导，解读其中蕴含的中国古代判官的法律推理思想，并试图找寻这种思想对当代中国是否有一定的借鉴价值。

　　结语部分则是对本文观点论证过程的一次梳理，对观点做出重申，即中国古代逻辑不仅对于中国古代法律推理产生了实质影响，对于当代中国司法实践中的法律推理也有一定的借鉴作用。

　　关键词：墨家逻辑；亚里士多德逻辑；法律推理

　　Abstract

　　Aristotelian logic with China and India Hetuvidya Mohist Logic Logic Logic said theworld's three major traditions, but with the development of the times , only the Aristotelianlogic has been tremendous progress in the development along with the times . But not becauseAristotle logic in the current dominance , we must use it as the only measure of other culturaltraditions has logical characteristics . There are many scholars insisted that the standard usedto examine the history of ancient Chinese thought, come to the ancient Chinese did not logicalconclusion. Indeed, the word “ logic” is Borrowed words , but it is not only used to refer toWestern logic , it is after all just a sign code , can be used to refer to any of the general logicof truth has pursued ideas. Ancient China, especially in the Spring and Autumn Period Moismdeveloped , it contains a wealth of insights on the universal logic of truth , it is a proof of theexistence of ancient Chinese logic . The author below it intends to participate in the first “Chinese logic exists wheel ” already exists in this debate were to go.

　　Legal reasoning of judges in the judicial process, according to the facts and the lawrecognized , draw conclusions sentenced thinking activity specific cases , nothing so ancient .

　　Any thinking activities , including legal reasoning, its body can not live in an era from itsenvironment , are subject to environmental constraints in which he was . This is obvious. Butnow, some scholars , but because with the current theory of legal reasoning to interpret theancient Chinese judicial practice , so as to arrive in ancient China and has no legal reasoningconclusion. Hereinafter, the author will also be the actual case in ancient China , for example,combining logic to interpret Thought in Ancient China , rather than the idea now , so theintention to explore the ancient Chinese judge whether they are conscious of the use of legalreasoning , their content .

　　This article from the introduction, body and conclusion of three parts.

　　In which the author discusses the topic introduction of reasons.

　　Text can be broadly divided into three parts , its contents described as follows: The firstpart describes why the author is a firm supporter of China logical ontology , and Westernlogic to make the necessary comparative analysis ; second part of the current legal reasoningto sort out the basic content of which shall be set aside part of the dispute , the use ofrelatively mature determine argument, as foreshadowing below; third part, to the ancientChinese text based slips to logical thought in ancient China as a guide , the interpretation ofwhich contains ancient Chinese judge 's legal reasoning thinking and trying to find this idea ofcontemporary Chinese Are there certain reference value.

　　The conclusion of this article is the opinion of one sort of argumentation , to makereiterated views .

　　Key Words:Mohist Logic;Aristotelian logic;legal reasoning
 

　　目 录

　　绪 论

　　一、中国逻辑存在论

　　（一）中国特色的古代逻辑

　　（二）驳有关“逻辑的特殊性与普遍性”

　　（三）中外逻辑的异同

　　（四）本章小结

　　二、中外逻辑的比较

　　（一）文化背景比较

　　（二）目的与任务的比较

　　（三）主导的推理类型比较

　　（四）推理成分的比较

　　（五）本章小结

　　三、有关法律推理的基本内容

　　（一）法律推理的涵义

　　（二）法律推理的类型

　　（三）本章小结

　　四、中国古代逻辑在古代司法实践中的表现

　　（一）春秋战国时期的逻辑与法律

　　（二）解读秦汉时期的判犊

　　（三）明清时期

　　五、结论

　　参考文献