Article
Русская версия неокантианства: к постановке проблемы
A research of the Russian version of neukantianism as special conception, the , principle of studing the Different formulated by A.I. Vvedensky, application of this conception by I.I. Lapshin and A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky for the methodology of history.
A number of puzzles surround Kelsen’s doctrine of the normativity of the law. What, exactly, does it mean? Some writers in analytical jurisprudence have attributed a “justified” or “contentual” normativity thesis to Hans Kelsen. One representative of this view, Joseph Raz, goes so far as to claim that the “justified normativity thesis” defended by Kelsen is an expression of traditional natural law theory. In the present essay it is argued that a “justified” or “contentual” normativity thesis forms no part of Kelsen’s theory, and the point is demonstrated textually. Rather, Kelsen defends a “modal” normativity thesis. Support for this thesis in Kelsen’s writings is drawn from Kelsen’s analogy between causality in the physical sciences and peripheral imputation in the law. The latter, as Kelsen argues, provides the underlying Gesetzlichkeit of the law,* and one explication of the notion, explored in the present essay, draws on a Neokantian notion, namely, Heinrich Rickert’s doctrine of methodological forms. The modal normativity thesis underscores the irreducible character of the law, but without making any claims respecting the content of the law.
The paper identifies two approaches in the formation of subject fields of historiography’s source studies, which differ according to their religion and paradigmatic grounds and, respectively, on the methodological and ethical consequences. First – inside the disciplinary framework of historiography, in which historiography’s source studies is formed quite traditional way, by analogy with the so-called source studies (actually thematic review of sources) other specialisations and research areas – source studies of military history, source studies agrarian history etc.
The starting point of the second approach serves as a source studies. This approach, developed by Scientific and pedagogical school of source studies website Istochnikovedenie.ru, realizing the idea of exacting scientific nature of historical knowledge and considering the historical source (including historiographic sources) as its empirical basis, aspires to rationality of the neoclassical type. Understanding the historical source as a result of a creative activity of a person / product of the culture leads to the following definition of the analyzed concept: historiographic sources is a group of types of historical sources, realizing the functions of presentation and positioning of historical knowledge, both scientific and socially oriented. In this case, the historiography’s source studies as a branch of source studies, has as its object of a specific group of historical sources – historiographic sources while maintaining universal source studies themes of the approach for studying them.
Examines the concept of historiographic source and shows the coherence of approaches to the definition of this concept approaches to the definition of a historical source, links these approaches with classical, non-classical and neoclassical models of science. Shown the value of the species classification of historiographic sources, which allows to evaluate them not only in terms of goal-setting of the author, but in the context of a specific historiographical culture. A special analysis s given for the notion of «monography» as a kind of historiographic sources, coherent classical model of science.
A number of puzzles surround Kelsen’s doctrine of the normativity of the law. What, exactly, does it mean? Some writers in analytical jurisprudence have attributed a “justified” or “contentual” normativity thesis to Hans Kelsen. One representative of this view, Joseph Raz, goes so far as to claim that the “justified normativity thesis” defended by Kelsen is an expression of traditional natural law theory. In the present essay it is argued that a “justified” or “contentual” normativity thesis forms no part of Kelsen’s theory, and the point is demonstrated textually. Rather, Kelsen defends a “modal” normativity thesis. Support for this thesis in Kelsen’s writings is drawn from Kelsen’s analogy between causality in the physical sciences and peripheral imputation in the law. The latter, as Kelsen argues, provides the underlying Gesetzlichkeit of the law,* and one explication of the notion, explored in the present essay, draws on a Neokantian notion, namely, Heinrich Rickert’s doctrine of methodological forms. The modal normativity thesis underscores the irreducible character of the law, but without making any claims respecting the content of the law.
The paper identifies two approaches in the formation of subject fields of historiography’s source studies, which differ according to their religion and paradigmatic grounds and, respectively, on the methodological and ethical consequences. First – inside the disciplinary framework of historiography, in which historiography’s source studies is formed quite traditional way, by analogy with the so-called source studies (actually thematic review of sources) other specialisations and research areas – source studies of military history, source studies agrarian history etc.
The starting point of the second approach serves as a source studies. This approach, developed by Scientific and pedagogical school of source studies website Istochnikovedenie.ru, realizing the idea of exacting scientific nature of historical knowledge and considering the historical source (including historiographic sources) as its empirical basis, aspires to rationality of the neoclassical type. Understanding the historical source as a result of a creative activity of a person / product of the culture leads to the following definition of the analyzed concept: historiographic sources is a group of types of historical sources, realizing the functions of presentation and positioning of historical knowledge, both scientific and socially oriented. In this case, the historiography’s source studies as a branch of source studies, has as its object of a specific group of historical sources – historiographic sources while maintaining universal source studies themes of the approach for studying them.
Examines the concept of historiographic source and shows the coherence of approaches to the definition of this concept approaches to the definition of a historical source, links these approaches with classical, non-classical and neoclassical models of science. Shown the value of the species classification of historiographic sources, which allows to evaluate them not only in terms of goal-setting of the author, but in the context of a specific historiographical culture. A special analysis s given for the notion of «monography» as a kind of historiographic sources, coherent classical model of science.
This article is the foreword to «Pure Theory of Law» by Hans Kelsen reedited in 2008. The author of this article, M. Jestaedt, mentions the most common mistakes and misunderstandings suffered by the legal theory of Kelsen. Jestaedt also stresses ambiguity in reception of Kelsenian ideas. He describes the context of creation and publication of «Pure Theory of Law», and accentuates the revolutionary character of this book for its époque. Jestaedt underlines the role the adherents and neophytes of Hans Kelsen played in development of his legal doctrine. Among the most important ideas of this doctrine Jestaedt cites those about self-referential character of law and about purity. Kelsen requires such purity from the methodology of legal studies and not from law which is the object of these studies.