In Pragmatism, Law, and Logic, Frederic Kellogg deftly illustrates the deficiencies in the dominant debates in analytical jurisprudence in the twentieth century. These debates center on the question of legal indeterminacy, the idea of the autonomy of pure legal reasoning, and the relationship between moral principle, politics, and adjudicating the hard case. The deficiencies are largely the fault, according to Kellogg, of a synchronic view of the law in question at the bench. Kellogg offers a remedy to these problems by illustrating the diachronic view of law worked out by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. through his intellectual relationship with the early American Pragmatists concerning the nature of inductive logic, an endogenous model of legal uncertainty, and a nascent understanding of the sociology of legal knowledge. In what follows, I will summarize some of the important takeaways from the book, offer some brief critical remarks, and offer a reform in...

You do not currently have access to this content.