A tópica como técnica argumentativa do juízo solipsista

Abstract

The present study intends to be a contribution to scientific research, as it is concerned with investigating the use of topoi in the legal discourse on procedural law. It is highlighted that the use of this argumentative technique reveals itself to be in discordance with the very concept of a rule-based democracy, since it stands upon the idea of “dominant opinions”, with “general public acceptance”, expressed by “wise’ and “famous” people, thus, potentially leading to judicial solipsism. There will be explanations about discursive methods in which topoi play significant roles, along with insights to the works of Aristotle and Theodor Viehweg, who brought a significant theoretical delimitation to the argument. Furthermore, having defined the inspiring principals that govern procedural law in a rule-based democracy, empirical examples will be brought to demonstrate how the resort to topoi as a means of justification can lead to situations as far as a legal rule, perfectly fit to a concrete situation, being nonetheless disregarded, hence calling for some further explanation.