The problem of theoretical-methodological “refinement” of jurisprudence

The subject of this research is the essential characteristic of the history of legal thought of the last two centuries, which directly pertains to the theoretical-methodological fundamentals of legal theory. In the conditions of the object-disciplinary establishment of legal science as the theory of law since the end of the XVIII century, crucial significance has acquired the orientation towards demarcation of logical-gnoseological and real-psychological aspects of legal understanding. The article analyzes the peculiarities of the corresponding theoretical-methodological opposition, which manifested in the appeals to the construction of “refined” legal concepts that exclude any real arguments of social, historical, political, or psychological nature. By the end of the XIX century, namely in the field of the philosophy of law, has escalated the competition between psychologism and anti-psychologism in law. The novelty of this research lies in determination of the new patterns of theoretical and methodological opposition of psychological and anti-psychological attitudes of legal understanding in the evolution of legal thought in contemporary history. It is demonstrated that the phenomenological approach, which claimed to provide jurisprudence with an authentic scientific methodological apparatus, reduced the problem of legal understanding, however, did not contribute to the adequate understanding of law as a complex gnoseological object. Anti-psychological classification of phenomenology cannot be acknowledged without a profound analysis of the conceptual framework that contributed to the evolution of this approach in the sphere of cognition and interpretation of law.