Methodological Problems of the Modern Theory of Law
This article is devoted to the analysis of the reasons for the appearance of proposals for new cognitive methodologies in jurisprudence, the denial of Hegel's dialectics, Marx's materialistic approach, etc. The author believes that the reason for this is the dominance of liberal thinking in the humanities, including jurisprudence. The historical type of thinking, which is liberal, turns any ideology into a system of views on the role and significance of social, economic and other relations. One of the characteristic features of liberal ideology is the denial of existing values, ideas, accumulated knowledge. The liberal approach is an essential feature of the modern theory of law, the worldview of its development. Liberal thinking also denies the established values. In this connection it became popular to deny the dialectics of Hegel, the materialism of Marx's social development, the classical types of legal understanding, the system of sources of law, their traditional division, etc. Meanwhile there is an emphasis in the article on the following rule: what was achieved by domestic jurisprudence and convincingly proved is still actual. The author interprets Marx's ideas about the state, the individual and the state from his early works, which modern legal science does not comprehend or simply ignores. The principles of Hegel's dialectics are illustrated, while it is proved that this knowledge does not only correspond to that moment, but also very important and necessary for modern society. In the light of what was said the new methodologies in the theory of law proposed by young authors are rather sharply criticized. This is the so-called paradigmatic approach. The author believes that the replacement of scientific paradigms is a natural phenomenon for legal and other sciences. The so-called “drastic” change in scientific paradigms proposed in the 70th years of the last century by American scientists is not possible in the humanities. Following these ideas is wrong and unpromising. Criticism is subjected to synergistic, phenomenological and other ideas of new methodological foundations in the theory of law and the state. Synergetics is nothing more than a long-known technique in the system approach that can not claim an independent methodology. Proposals for a “global” role in the scientific knowledge of phenomenological methodology are also unsuccessful. Essentially, these are axiological principles and methods of cognition. The article states that liberal thinking and liberal ideology are the main phenomena in social and scientific life. Is it good or bad? Undoubtedly, it is good, for this is a condition necessary for scientific creativity. But the freedom of creativity is not a sword that can destroy everything, including such immutable authorities as Hegel, Marx, etc. The author also believes that the Soviet jurisprudence left the deep resources of knowledge, including the methodology. This does not mean that there is no need to seek new methodological approaches. The movement and development of the methodological toolkit must go forward. But this does not mean that the proposed “new methodologies” are capable of “restoring our worldview”, as well as the fact that the dialectical approach can only “supplement” advanced methodologies, etc. Such value as liberalism in all its manifestations presupposes the personal responsibility of the scientist, the principle of careful attitude to the existing knowledge, prudence and reasoning of the new provisions. Moreover, in cases of fundamental knowledge, such as Hegel's dialectic, the materialism of Karl Marx and others, liberalism requires manifestation and adaptation in the domestic theory of law.