phical theories.To adapt philosophical theory to empirical reality is thus imperative, especially if philosophical theories are to be of any use in the reconstruction of reality and thereby gain practical utility.112 The reason for showing philosophical restraint, and deference to facts, is based upon the observation that philosophical conclusions are derived from empirical data (in this case psychological factors). As a consequence thereof, if empirical self-consciousness itself has a psychological tendency to misconstrue reality in a certain direction and the theory of idealism is based upon and uses features of the self-consciousness as its underlying guiding principle, then the theoretical foundation of idealism can be no more certain than its original premiss, which itself constitutes a misconstruction of reality. Hägerström’s conclusion is that the theory of idealism sets the “self ” or the “subject” up as a sole epistemological (and subsequently sole ontological) norm for philosophy and science.The only difference between empirical self-consciousness and idealism is that while the former does so out of ignorance, the latter does so out of uncritical dogmatism.113 Therefore, the relationship between philosophy and empirical science must be interpreted in such a manner that the two are in reciprocal relationship to each other, which in turn presupposes that the principle of identity is valid.Accordingly, this implies that philosophy and empirical science are compatible with one another, which they must be on account of the fact that a universal application of the principle of identity guarantees a monistic scientific ontology. This is because, unless the principle of identity is held to be valid, the two systems will, figuratively speaking, run in parallel courses to each other. Scientific ontology would be divided in p a r t i i i , c h a p t e r 3 204 112 Cf. Hägerström, “Begreppet gällande rätt,” passim., especially p. 88 where Hägerström discusses the conditions under which legal doctrine will have any relevance as a source of law for judges (and other jurists) in their practical (real) business. 113 Cf. Immanuel Kant’s observation that the inherent faults of metaphysics are faults that are traceable to metaphysic’s uncritical acceptance of its points of departure, even when the conclusions that can be derived from these premisses show themselves to be logically untenable.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=