Методологические проблемы цивилистических исследований. Сборник научных статей. Ежегодник. Выпуск 2. 2017 - стр. 12

Besides, it is important to differentiate between the fundamental and the applied civil researches. Introducing changes into the existing legislation and improving the court practice cannot be the purposes of the fundamental researches, although as a result the latter gain an implied practical meaning.

However, the question of the philosophical part of the civil methodology is deemed to be most complicated. The chosen methods of research and the results of the research to a large extent depend on the scientist’s world view and his law understanding.

For example, the normativism suggests the exceptional study of the civil legal norms that regulate the legal phenomenon. Despite the fact that the civil theses defendants very seldom indicate the normativism as the methodological basis of the work, it is more often that it is the basis of the work. Indicating the dialectics as the fundamental of such a research means that both the normativism and the dialectics are misunderstood, because the principal technique of the latter is not “applicable for studying the the aggregate of the legal norms”29. Besides, the normative approach does not suggest the usage of the inter-disciplinary methodology, because it studies the static legal norms with no account for their real contents, and economic, social, cultural, psychological and any other extralegal dependence. In this case, the civil legal norms regulating the object in question, are accepted with no explanations, as a dogma. The dogmatic methodology of researching the civil legal problems defines the choice of the definite set of the cognition methods30, which will differ from the methods of, for example, comparative legal of social legal research.

Today, we observe the “grim cocktail” of the incompatible world-view ingredients in most diverse combinations: of the dialectics, metaphysics, idealism, materialism, realism, historicism, normativism, natural legal approach, sociological approach, phenomenological approach, communicative and other approaches to understanding the civil phenomena.

Surely, such a situation is primarily caused by the general shift in the Russian science from the methodological monism to pluralism. We are not against the philosophical methodological pluralism but the pluralism with dialectical necessity has two sides and holds internal contradiction, accurately noticed by O.V. Martyshkin: “The pluralism is good when it rests on solid cultural traditions and is coupled with a serious battle of ideas, with polemics, impatience for incompetence and pseudo science, craftsmanship, “self-expression” imposed by the will to become famous or by the deceptive ideas (scientific degrees, positions, honour). Under such conditions, the pluralism leads to improving the level of the scientific statement. Otherwise, the freedom of thought degenerates into the dissoluteness, whateverism and permissiveness, and this leads to decreasing the culture of the research”