Kaufmann’s brief journal book review assesses Emge’s Vorschule der Rechtsphilosophie through its contribution to the logical foundations of legal inquiry. He welcomes the increasing attention paid to those foundations in social and legal philosophy. His criterion is explicit: philosophy can support a specialized science theoretically only when grounded in logic.
Denn jede Philosophie, die nicht auf dem festen Fundament der Logik beruht, ist, sofern man ihr überhaupt noch jenen Ehrennamen zubilligen will, jedenfalls ungeeignet, das Gebäude irgendeiner Spezialwissenschaft theoretisch zu tragen.
English translation: For any philosophy that does not rest on the firm foundation of logic—if one is willing to accord it that honorific name at all—is in any case incapable of theoretically supporting the edifice of any specialized science.
Kaufmann identifies this commitment throughout Emge’s legal-philosophical writings and in the reviewed book, which summarizes lectures delivered at Riga’s Herder Institute in winter 1923/24. Its opening epistemological distinctions are subsequently applied to fundamental problems of legal science. Five appendices occupy approximately three fifths of the book, addressing, among other topics, validity, natural law, and doctrinal legal science.
The review’s conclusion is pedagogical rather than a detailed evaluation of these arguments:
Auf die interessanten und originellen Gedanken des Verfassers kritisch einzugehen, ist hier nicht der Raum, es sei nur darauf hingewiesen, daß das Buch als echte »Vorschule« für den Studierenden eine gute Einführung in die Probleme bedeutet, doch wird es sich bei einer Neuauflage empfehlen, die Darstellung noch etwas übersichtlicher zu gestalten.
English translation: There is no room here to engage critically with the author’s interesting and original ideas; it should merely be noted that, as a genuine “preparatory school,” the book offers students a good introduction to the problems, although in a new edition it would be advisable to make the presentation somewhat clearer.
Kaufmann thus endorses the book’s introductory value while reserving substantive criticism. His request for clearer organization qualifies the praise: sound logical foundations and original ideas still require an accessible presentation for students.
This work was divided into 1 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 1 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian