pher, he must come to conclusions, solve practical problems, make a system where there is no system, eradicate legal loopholes, circumvent contradictions, draw analogies, and perhaps even formulate fictions of law in order to solve practical problems.194 In other words, the jurist, in order to carry out his practical task, must adopt a synthesizing approach and construct law. However, the mandate to take the practical considerations that Hägerströmet al. accords the body of jurists is denied both to the legal philosopher and to the legal dogmatic.195 This is very interesting as it demonstrates that Hägerström at the beginning of his career seems to have maintained a decidedly stricter Kantian approach to science than later. One explanation is that Hägerström (1904) allows practicing lawyers to solve their problems synthetically, but closes this avenue of approach, regardless of its practical value, for the legal dogmatic and the legal philosopher, as the synthesizing approach, strictly speaking (from a Kantian point of view), is unscientific.196 The science of legal dogmatics is strictly bound to positive law, and the scientific task of jurisprudence is to analyze and systematize the norms, to subject them to a logical analysis (but not to synthesize them).197 Hence, any attempt to perfect or harmonize the legal material is thus scientifically unwarranted and will only lead to ostensibly scientifically valid results; the legal dogmatic discourse in fact lacks the mandate to perform such “unscientific” constructions.According to Hägerström’s early notion of legal science, what characterizes the validity of a proper scientific investigation is whether or not the a ca l l f o r s c i e n t i f i c p u r i t y 439 194 Ibid., pp. 15-18. About the practical nature of legal science see also Hägerström, “Begreppet gällande rätt,” pp. 83-91; Objektiva rättens begrepp, pp. 16-51 and 122-126; “The Notion of Law,” pp. 74-105 and 201-206. 195 Hägerström, Stat och rätt, pp. 15-16. 196 Ibid., p. 16. Cf. Kant, The Conflict of the Faculties: Der Streit der Fakultäten, pp. 24-26. 197 Ibid., pp. 3-4. 4 . 3. 1 häge r ström’s kant ian conce pt ion of legal dogmat ics (1904)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=