I have always been fascinated with the duality of human nature. One such version is
the duality that has existed in legal theory or legal philosophy from the very
beginning of our civilization, that between natural law and legal positivism. Both
perspectives have certainly proven to be persuasive accounts of law, but it needs to
be understood how their authors can be so different as to have such distinct
approaches concerning the essence of law. In order to obtain an insight into people’s
true nature, one needs to study psychology and I was very lucky to come into
contact with Jung and his depth psychology. From amongst his enormous work in
the field of analytical psychology, it was a particular typology that gave me at least
a glimpse of understanding as to why people have such divergent views.
This book has been in a state of either gestation or writing for more than
10 years. In order to make a general account of something, one needs to develop
an overarching perspective that can only be properly established over a longer
period of time.
I have incorporated certain material from the following articles of mine,
although with much revision and amplification: “A typological reading of
prevailing legal theories”, Ratio Juris, No. 2, Vol. 27 (2014) (Chaps. 1 and 3);
“The argument from psychological typology for a mild separation between the
context of discovery and the context of justification”, in: Dahlman, C. (ed.), Legal
Argumentation Theory: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives, Dordrecht: Springer
(2013) (Chap. 4); “Ideal Types of Law from the Perspective of Psychological
Typology”, Revus, No. 19 (2014) (Chap. 3); and “Legal Thinking: A Psychological
Type Perspective”, Dignitas, No. 49/50 (2011) (Chap. 2).