02 julho 2006
Monty Python, Argumentação, Discussão e Direito - Que lógica?
The Argument Clinic
M: Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.
R: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
M: No, I haven't, this is my first time.
R: I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?
M: Well, what is the cost?
R: Well, It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.
M: Well, I think it would be best if I perhaps started off with just the one and then see how it goes.
R: Fine. Well, I'll see who's free at the moment.
Pause
R: Mr. DeBakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory. Ahh yes, Try Mr. Barnard; room 12.
M: Thank you.
(...)
(Walk down the corridor)
M: (Knock)
A: Come in.
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!M: No it isn't!
A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
M: What?
A: That's it. Good morning.
M: I was just getting interested.
A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!
A: I'm afraid it was.
M: It wasn't.
Pause
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.
M: What?!
A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
A: (Hums)
M: Look, this is ridiculous.
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Oh, all right. (pays money)
A: Thank you. short pause
M: Well?
A: Well what?
M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.
A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
M: I just paid!
A: No you didn't.
M: I DID!
A: No you didn't.
M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.
A: Well, you didn't pay.
M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
A: No you haven't.
M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
M: Oh I've had enough of this.
A: No you haven't.
M: Oh Shut up.
Monty Python's Flying Circus
Vem este Sketch dos Monty Python a propósito de um livro intitulado El Derecho como Argumentación, de Manuel Atienza, e do seu resumo que se pode ler na íntegra aqui.
Do texto de Francisco Laporta destaco as seguintes passagens:
"Tras explorar con él muchos de los intrincados problemas y encrucijadas que nos aguardan en los diferentes mundos argumentativos, el lector puede experimentar una sensación que, si yo no me equivoco, constituye la intención del autor al proponer esta obra: la realidad del derecho, que tantas veces ha sido pensada como un mundo estático y compacto, como esa suerte de trama disecada de normas que suele presentarnos la dogmática jurídica, cobra un inesperado y rico dinamismo, y aparece ante el lector como una práctica en continuo movimiento cuya razón de ser no es otra que su capacidad para enfrentar y resolver problemas incesantemente. El orden jurídico se muestra así sobre todo como derecho en acto, como derecho en acción, como un conjunto de instituciones y normas en constante intercambio con la realidad social mediante los instrumentos complejos de la argumentación sobre problemas, como un mecanismo institucional que se define fundamentalmente por sus resortes de reacción ante la conflictiva naturaleza del mundo social."
"Los jueces españoles, cada vez más heroicamente, pero también cada vez con más prisas y ligereza, parecen predestinados a la sola e ingrata tarea de quitarse papeles de encima. Hasta se piensa en juzgarlos mediante baremos de "rendimiento": cuantas más sentencias pongan más "rendirán" y más podrán cobrar. Pero, claro, esto no tiene nada que ver con el libro que comento. Porque este libro presupone siempre la existencia de un aparato institucional de justicia que permite al juez hacer eso que nuestra expresión popular denota tan sabiamente: pararse a pensar. Al mostrar sin proponérselo la enorme distancia que hemos de salvar entre lo que se debe pedir a un órgano de la justicia y la situación en que estamos, el libro de Manuel Atienza puede prestar también indirectamente un valioso servicio ulterior: advertirnos de que nunca tendremos un orden jurídico que satisfaga las exigencias de una "empresa racional" si quienes lo sirven no pueden siquiera pensar en justificar sus decisiones mediante prácticas argumentativas serias."
