A Case for Constructive Conceptual Explanation
Chapter 4: Analytical jurisprudence and necessity
AbstractThis chapter introduces the view that many necessary truths about law that, for example, Hart defends, are neither analytic nor a priori truths, but are instead best understood as claims of a posteriori necessary truth. This chapter is designed as a counter-balance to Brian Leiter’s view that philosophers of law ought to consult Quine’s naturalized epistemology to resolve some longstanding internal disputes about the boundaries of law. Saul Kripke’s account of the separability of analyticity, a prioricity and necessity is just as important, if not more so, to employ.
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.
Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.
Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.