Metaphors, law and artefacts, or a few remarks on legal concepts from the perspective of cognitive science

References

1. 01

   Anscombe, G.E.M. (1958). On brute facts. Analysis 18(3), 69–72.

2. 02

   Arystoteles. (2010). Fizyka. Warszawa: PWN.

3. 03

   Audi, R. (2012). Grounding: Toward a Theory of the In -Virtue-Of Relation. Journal of Philosophy 109(12), 685–711.

4. 04

   Bird, A. (2015). The metaphysics of natural kinds. Synthese. doi:10.1007/s11229-015-0833-y.

5. 05

   Bird, A., Tobin, E. (2016). Natural Kinds. In. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from:

6. 06

   https://plato.stanford.edu/.

7. 07

   Brożek, B. (2006). Derywacyjna koncepcja wykładni z perspektywy logicznej. Ruch Prawniczy, Socjologiczny i Ekonomiczny 1, 81–92.

8. 08

   Brożek, B. (2016). Marzenie Leibniza: Rzecz o języku religii. Kraków: Copernicus Center Press.

9. 09

   Brożek, B., Cyrul, W. (2003). Globalny system prawa. In: J. Stelmach (Ed.), Studia z filozofii prawa II (pp. 93–110). Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.

10. 10

    Burazin, L. (2016). Can There Be an Artifact Theory of Law. Ratio Juris 3, 385–401.

11. 11

    Coleman, J., Simchen, O. (2003). Law. Legal Theory 9, 1–41.

12. 12

    Crowe, J. (2014). Law as an Artifact Kind. Monash University Law Review 3, 737–757.

13. 13

    Fauconnier, G., Turner, M. (2003). The Way We Think. Conceptual Blending And The Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.

14. 14

    Gardner, J. (2004). The Legality of Law. Ratio Juris 2, 168–181.

15. 15

    Gizbert-Studnicki, T., Klinowski, M. (2012). Are Legal Concepts Embedded in Legal Norms. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 4, 553–562.

16. 16

    Hart, H.L.A. (1961). The Concept of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hilpinen, R. (undated). From Naturefacts to Artifacts. Retrieved from: http://www.as.miami.edu/media/ college-of-arts-and-sciences/contentassets/philosophy/docs/Artifacts-Naturefacts-0914.pdf.

17. 17

    Hilipinen, R. (2011). Artifact. In. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from:

18. 18

    Johnson, M. (1992). The Body in the Mind. The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago–London: University of Chicago Press.

19. 19

    Johnson, M. (2007). Mind, metaphor and law. Mercer Law Review 58(3), 845-868.

20. 20

    Johnson, M. (2015). Znaczenie ciała. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.

21. 21

    Kelsen, H. (1943). Society and Nature. A Sociological Inquiry. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

22. 22

    Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh. The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.

23. 23

    Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. (2010). Metafory w naszym życiu. Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy.

24. 24

    Lakoff, G., Nunez, R. (2000). Where Mathematics Comes From. How the Emb odied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being. New York: Basic Books.

25. 25

    Larsson, S. (2013). Conceptions, Categories and Embodiment: Why Metaphors are of Fundamental Importance for Understanding Norms. In: M. Baier (Ed.), Social and Legal Norms: Towards a Sociolegal Understanding of Normativity. London–New York: Routledge.

26. 26

    Leiter, B. (2011). The Demarcation Problem in Jurisprudence: A New Case for Scepticism. Oxford Journal for Legal Studies 4, 663-677.

27. 27

    Olivecrona, K. (1949). Three Essays in Roman Law. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.

28. 28

    Oswalt, W. (1976). An Anthropological Analysis of Food-Getting Technology. New York: Wiley.

29. 29

    Ross, A. (1957). Tû-Tû. Harvard Law Review 70(5), 812-825.

30. 30

    Roversi, C. (2015). Legal Metaphoric Artifacts. In: J. Stelmach, B. Brożek, Ł. Kurek ( Eds.), The Emergence of Normative Orders. Kraków: Copernicus Center Press.

31. 31

    Schauer, F. (2012). On the Nature of the Nature of Law. Archiv fur Rechtsund Sozialphilosophie 4, 457–467.

32. 32

    Shapiro, L. (2010). Embodied Cognition, London–New York: Taylor & Francis.

33. 33

    Spaak, T. (2014). A Critical Appraisal of Karl Olivecrona’s Legal Philosophy. Heidelberg–New York– Dordrecht–London: Springer.

34. 34

    Talmy, L. (1988). Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition. Cognitive Science 12(1), 49–100.

35. 35

    Thomasson, A. (2007). Artifacts and Human Concepts. In: E. Margolis, S. Laurence ( Eds.), Creations of the Mind: Theories of Artifacts and Their Representation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

36. 36

    Varela, F.J., Thompson, E., Rosch, E. (1992). The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Hum an Experience. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

37. 37

    Wilson, A.D., Golonka, S. (2013). Embodied cognition is not what you think it is. Frontiers in Psychology 4. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00058.

38. 38

    Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 4, 625–636.

39. 39

    Wilson, R., Foglia, L. (2016). Embodied cognition. In. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/.

40. 40

    Winter, S. (1988). The Metaphor of Standing and the Problem of Self-Governance. Stanford Law Review 40(6), 1371–1516.

41. 41

    Winter, S. (2001). Clearing in the Forest: Law, Life and Mind. Chicago–London: University of Chicago Press.

42. 42

    Wittgenstein, L. (2000). Dociekania filozoficzne. Warszawa: PWN.

43. 43

    Zieliński, M. (2006). Derywacyjna koncepcja wykładni jako koncepcja zintegrowana. Ruch Prawniczy, Socjologiczny i Ekonomiczny 3, 93–101.

44. 44

    Zilsel, E. (1942). The Genesis of the Concept of Physical Law. The Philosophical Review 51(3), 245- 279.