Wherever assertions are explicitly made in the name of the editor or when tasksare set for the Archiv in the course of Section I of the foregoing essay, the personalviews of the author are not involved. Each of the points in question has the expressagreement of the coeditors. The author alone bears the responsibility for the formand content of Section II.The fact that the points of view, not only of the contributors but of the editors aswell, are not identical even on methodological issues, stands as a guarantee thatthe Archiv will not fall prey to any sectarian outlook. On the other hand, agreementas to certain fundamental issues is a presupposition of the joint assumptionof editorial responsibility. This agreement refers particularly to the value of theoretical knowledge from "one-sided" points of view, the construction of preciselydefined concepts and the insistence on the rigorous distinction between empiricalknowledge and value-judgments as here understood. Naturally we do not claim to present anything new therewith.The extensiveness of the discussion (Section II) and the frequent repetition of thesame thought are intended only to maximize the general understanding of ourargument in wider circles. For the sake of this intention, much--let us hope not toomuch--precision in expression has been sacrificed. For the same reason, we haveomitted the presentation of a systematic analysis in favor of the present listing of a few methodological viewpoints. A systematic inquiry would have required thetreatment of a large number of cognitive questions which are far deeper than thoseraised here. We are not interested here in the furtherance of logical analysis perse. We are attempting only to apply the well-known results of modern logic to ourown problems. Nor are we solving problems here; we are trying only to make theirsignificance apparent to non-specialists. Those who know the work of the modernlogicians--I cite only Windelband, Simmel, and for our purposes particularly Heinrich Rickert--will immediately notice that everything of importance in thisessay is bound up with their work.
WHEN A SOCIAL SCIENCE journal which also at times concerns itself with a socialpolicy, appears for the first time or passes into the hands of a new editorial board, itis customary to ask about its "line." We, too, must seek to answer this question andfollowing up the remarks in our "Preface," we will enter into the question in a more