Skip to main content

Lecture XVI

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
A Theory of Philosophical Fallacies

Part of the book series: Argumentation Library ((ARGA,volume 26))

  • 1342 Accesses

Abstract

The concept-swapping fallacy could be dismissed out of hand as a mere playing on words that does not deceive anyone were it not for the fact that under certain circumstances it can, and does, have serious practical consequences. This is eminently the case of the alleged proof that a supranational organisation such as the League of Nations is a logical impossibility, for it would destroy the nation-states that would try to set it up. This ‘proof’, constructed of all pieces by German legal scholars, was instrumental in preventing the establishment of such an organisation and in preparing the ground for future war.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Stengel (1909, 4).

  2. 2.

    See Stengel (1909, 93, 94).

  3. 3.

    See Stengel (1909, 1).

  4. 4.

    The first quotation is on p. 55, the second on p. 34 of Jellinek (1882). The German here translated by ‘one’s own will’ and ‘its own will’ actually lacks expression of the possessor or subject of the will, which in English is impossible. This is part of the linguistic sleight of hand perpetrated by Jellinek. The question of whose will we are talking about is thus much harder to raise for the original German definitions. The state as such cannot be said to will, only certain individuals or groups who are in a position to make the relevant decisions.

  5. 5.

    It is interesting that Nelson, usually quite sharp, in this passage seems to consider the State as a subject of will. See Footnote 4 in this chapter.

  6. 6.

    See Jellinek (1914, 365).

  7. 7.

    See Jellinek (1914, 772).

  8. 8.

    Nelson refers to cases such as the United States of America, born as a federation in 1776, as well as the newly unified states of Italy (1870) and the German Reich (1871).

  9. 9.

    See Jellinek (1882, 11).

References

  • Hegel, Georg Friedrich Wilhelm. 1821. Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts. Berlin: Nicolai. [English translation: Elements of the philosophy of right, Cambridge University Press, 1991].

    Google Scholar 

  • Jellinek, Georg. 1882. Die Lehre von den Staatenverbindungen [The theory of associations of states]. Vienna: Alfred Hölder.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jellinek, Georg. 1914. Allgemeine Staatslehre [General theory of the state], 3rd ed. Berlin: Oscar Häring [First edition 1900, second edition 1905].

    Google Scholar 

  • Stengel, Karl Michael Joseph Leopold, Freiherr von. 1909. Weltsaat und Friedensproblem [World government and the peace problem]. Berlin: Reichl & Co.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nelson, L. (2016). Lecture XVI. In: A Theory of Philosophical Fallacies. Argumentation Library, vol 26. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20783-4_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics