Cover Page


The relevance of the article, which consists of two parts, is that the various theories of rationality presented only in philosophical works are considered. Meanwhile, it should be noted that in recent decades in scientific works on jurisprudence there is a clear trend of borrowing such terms from philosophy as “classical”, “non-classical” or “post-non-classical” science in the description of a concept of law. Nevertheless, in legal studies there is still no concept of rationality, the criteria for its classification, allowing to describe the diversity of manifestations of legal reality. The purpose of the study is: 1) to find new non-classical foundations for the development of legal knowledge; 2) to substantiate the point of view that the category of “scientific rationality” and its typology used in philosophy, it is necessary to introduce into scientific use of legal science, which will push the boundaries of knowledge of legal reality; 3) to describe the features of understanding of the term "scientific rationality" in law in the context of its classification into the following two groups: classical and neoclassical (post-classical), as well as non-classical and post-classical. In the process of studying the philosophy of rationality in legal studies used a diverse set of methodological tools : 1) General philosophical methods (dialectical and idealistic); 2) General scientific methods - analysis and synthesis, deduction and induction, analogy, comparison; 3) and private (special) - logical, comparative-legal, formal-legal, normative-dogmatic; 4) method of interpretation, including the method of problem-theoretical reconstruction. The main results of achieving the goal of the study were proposals on: 1) introduction of the concept of “types and models of legal rationality” into the scientific circulation of jurisprudence; 2) classification of legal rationality into classical and non - classical types and corresponding models-neoclassical (post-classical) and post-non-classical. It should be noted that the post-classical and post-non-classical styles of legal thinking are evolved versions, respectively, of the classical and non-classical types of legal rationality. The basis for the classification of types of scientific rationality in legal science was the anthropological factor-consciousness homo juridicus and methodological tools with which legal consciousness is known. The novelty of the study is that the above classification of epistemological paradigms allows us to look at the law as a multilevel reality, which is simultaneously inherent in the two mechanisms of its Constitution - external and internal. Moreover, the presented criteria-based classification of legal rationality is the basis for the development of legal knowledge.

About the authors

Valeriy P. Ivanskiy

Peoples' Friendship University of Russia

Author for correspondence.
6, Miklukho-Maklaya st., Moscow, Russia, 117198

Candidate of Legal Sciences, Associate Professor the Department of Administrative and Financial Law

Sergey I. Kovalev

Peoples' Friendship University of Russia

6, Miklukho-Maklaya st., Moscow, Russia, 117198

Candidate of Legal Sciences, Associate Professor the Department of Civil Law and Procedure


  1. Alekseev, N.N. (1999), Osnovy filosofii prava [Basic philosophy of law]. Saint Petersburg, Lan, p. 251. (in Russian).
  2. Chestnov, I.L. (2012), Postklassicheskaya teoriya prava [Postclassical theory of law]. Saint Petersburg, Alef-Press, p. 650. (in Russian).
  3. Feyerabend, P.K. (1986), Protiv metodologicheskogo prinuzhdeniya. Izbrannye trudy po metodologii nauki [Against methodological coercion. Selected Works on the Methodology of Science]. Moscow, Progress, p. 542. (in Russian).
  4. Feyerabend, P. (1961), Comments on Grunbaum's «Law and Convention in Physical Theory». Current Issue in 213 the Philosophy of Science, Feigl and Maxwell, pp. 155–161. (in English).
  5. Feyerabend, P. (1965), Reply to Criticism. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, ed. by Cohen R. and Wartofsky M., II, pp. 223–261. (in English).
  6. Feyerabend, P. (1968–1969), On a Recent Critique of Complementarity. Phill. of Science, (35), pp. 309–331, (36), pp. 82–105. (in English).
  7. Gromova, T.N., Poluboyarov, D.I. (2015), Yuridicheskaya kartina mira [Legal picture of the world] Nauchnoe obozrenie [Scientific Review] (10–2), pp. 330–335. (in Russian).
  8. Gritsenko, G.D. (2002), Pravoponimanie: antropologicheskie i sotsiokul'turnye aspekty: monografiya [Law understanding: anthropological and sociocultural aspects: monograph]. Stavropol: Izd-vo Stavropol'skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, p. 227. (in Russian).
  9. Kitcher, Ph. (1993), The Advancement of Science. Science without Legend. Objectivity without Illusions. Oxford, Oxford univ. press, р. 421. (in English).
  10. Kun, T. (2009), Struktura nauchnykh revolyutsii [Structure of scientific revolutions]. Moscow, AST, 2009, p. 310. (in Russian).
  11. Lakatos, I. (1968), Criticism and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, pp. 69, 149–186. (in English).
  12. Lakatos, I. (1972), History of Science and its Rational Reconstructions // Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, ed. by R. Cohen, R. Buck, pp. 8, 174–182. (in English).
  13. Lakatos, I. (2008), Fal'sifikatsiya i metodologiya nauchno-issledovatel'skikh programm / Izbrannye proizvedeniya po filosofii i metodologii nauki [Falsification and methodology of research programs / Selected works on philosophy and methodology of science]. Moscow, Akademicheskii proekt: Triksta, pp. 3–235. (in Russian).
  14. Laudan, L. (1984) Science and Values. Berkeley; Los Angeles; London, University of California Press, р. 339. (in English).
  15. Laudan, L. (1992), A problem-solving approach to scientific progress. Scientific Revolutions (ed. by I. Hacking). Oxford, Oxford University Press, рр. 144–155. (in English).
  16. Luhmann, N. (1993), Das Recht der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. (in English).
  17. Nersesyants, V.S. (2011), Filosofiya prava: Uchebnik dlya vuzov [Philosophy of law: Textbook for universities] Moscow, NORMA, p. 848. (in Russian).
  18. Newton-Smith, W.H. (1981), The Rationality of Science. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, р 294. (in English).
  19. Newton-Smith, W.H. (1985) Change. Sinthese, рр. 62, 347–363. (in English).
  20. Pavlov, V.I. (2011), Ot klassicheskogo k neklassicheskomu yuridicheskomu diskursu. Ocherki obshchei teorii i filosofii prava [From classical to non-classical legal discourse. Essays on the General theory and philosophy of law.]. Minsk: Akademiya Ministerstva vnutrennikh del Respubliki Belarus', p. 319. (in Belarus).
  21. Petrazhitskii, L.I. (2000), Teoriya prava i gosudarstva v svyazi s teoriei nravstvennosti [Theory of law and state in connection with the theory of morality]. Saint Petersburg, Lan, р. 608. (in Russian).
  22. Polyakov, A.V. (2016), Obshchaya teoriya prava: problemy interpretatsii v kontekste kommunikativnogo podkhoda: uchebnik [General theory of law: problems of interpretation in the context of communicative approach]. Moscow, Prospekt, p. 832. (in Russian).
  23. Popper, K. (1983), Logika i rost nauchnogo znaniya. Izbrannye raboty [Logic and growth of scientific knowledge. Selected works]. Moscow, Progress, p. 605. (in Russian).
  24. Putnam, H. (1981), Reason, Truth, and History. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, р. 222. (in English).
  25. Quine, W. (1969), Ontological relativity and other essays, New York, Columbia University Press, р. 165. (in English).
  26. Rorti, R. (1997), Filosofiya i zerkalo prirody [Philosophy and the mirror of nature] Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk State University publ, р. 320. (in Russian).
  27. Sinyakov, D.K. (2015), Kontseptsiya pravovogo autopoiezisa. Teoreticheskoe obosnovanie: monografiya [The concept of legal autopoiesis. Theoretical background: monograph] Moscow, YuNITI-DANA, р. 175. (in Russian).
  28. Tonlmin, S. (1967), The Evolutionary Development of Natural Science. American Scientists, рр. 55, 456–471. (in English).
  29. Tonlmin, S. (1998), Chelovecheskoe ponimanie [Human understanding] Blagoveshchensk: BGK im. I.A. Boduena de Kurtene, р. 304. (in Russian).
  30. Vedeneev, Yu.A. (2014), Yuridicheskaya kartina mira: mezhdu dolzhnym i sushchim [Legal picture of the world: between the proper and the existent]. Lex Russica. T. XCVI (6), 641–654. (in Russian).



Abstract - 325

PDF (Russian) - 357





  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2019 Ivanskiy V.P., Kovalev S.I.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies