Interpretation as a Zetetic Inquiry

Abstract

This article proposes an understanding of legal interpretation from a zetetic perspective, that is, one guided by questioning and critical openness, in contrast to the dogmatic approach, which is more concerned with stabilizing answers. Drawing primarily on the work of Tércio Sampaio Ferraz Júnior, the author examines interpretation as a linguistic, communicative, and pragmatic phenomenon, emphasizing vagueness, ambiguity, and the symbolic function of legal language. The text then discusses Kelsen’s distinction between authentic and doctrinal interpretation, as well as the debate between voluntas legis and voluntas legislatoris, with attention to subjectivist and objectivist approaches. It also analyzes legal hermeneutics through the lenses of symbolic power, competent language use, and the figure of the rational legislator, understood as a dogmatic construct that enables the transition from norm to reality. Finally, the article argues that hermeneutics performs a rationalizing function by neutralizing social conflicts and ensuring legal decidability, including in cases involving gap-filling within the legal system, while preserving the evaluative and ideological character of interpretation.