Qualified reader or interpreter: on the attitude of the researcher towards the sources of cognition of legal and political doctrines

Abstract

This article determines and analyzes certain characteristics of modern approaches towards the problem of attitudes to the sources of study on the history of political and legal thought. The attempts to speculate on hermeneutic practices as the constitutive method in analyzing the political and legal views of the philosophers of the past and modernity are subject to critical evaluation; and, on the other hand, the importance of qualified interpretation and analysis of the classical legal heritage is emphasized. It is demonstrated how conventional, shallow, or ideologized attitude towards the sources of study on the history and political thought creates fallacious and often just quasi-religious patterns of interpretation of the fundamental ideas and concepts, content of the discussed topics and problems, and social-practical orientation of their views. The scientific novelty lies primarily in determination and clarification of certain crucial aspects of modern methodology of the history of political and legal doctrines that are meaningful for the philosophy of law and legal theory overall. This pertains to the improvement of cognitive techniques and practices of the political and legal ideas of the past and modernity,  namely through minimization or elimination of such approaches towards their cognition that speculate on anti-historical attitudes; constitute interpretation as the key semantic unit in assessing the legal views of various philosophers; neglect the principles of objectivity and integrity in reconstructing the intellectual heritage; tendentiously articulate the accents of artistic, rather than documentary reconstruction of legal and political representations.