Uppsala School of Philosophy

1. Introduction

The Uppsala School of Philosophy designates a loosely knit movement active primarily at Uppsala University from the early 20th century to around 1960. It is commonly associated with Axel Hägerström and a circle of students and colleagues who shared a set of overlapping commitments: a strong anti‑metaphysical orientation, a radical critique of objective values often termed value‑nihilism, and an insistence that philosophy should proceed by rigorous logical and conceptual analysis rather than by speculative system‑building.

Historians generally treat the School as a regional variant of early analytic philosophy and scientific philosophy, though opinions differ on how unified it really was. Some interpretations emphasize a relatively coherent “Hägerströmian” program that extended from ethics and religion into law and political theory. Others portray Uppsala as a more heterogeneous environment in which shared methods (clarification of concepts, hostility to obscurity, admiration for the natural sciences) coexisted with disagreements about the extent and implications of value‑nihilism.

Within Sweden, the Uppsala School is frequently described as a major force in secularization and the intellectual weakening of the Lutheran state church, as well as a key source for Scandinavian legal realism. Internationally, it is often discussed in connection with logical empiricism, British and American metaethics, and debates about the nature of normative language.

The label “Uppsala School” itself is partly a historiographical construct. Contemporary actors sometimes invoked it to mark a contrast with older idealist and theological traditions or with other Swedish departments, but subsequent scholarship has debated whether it names a strict “school” with a doctrine or rather a historically contingent cluster of practices and attitudes. This entry adopts the term in the widely used, moderately inclusive sense: a constellation of philosophers and jurists centered on Uppsala whose work collectively reshaped Swedish philosophy, law, and public discourse along anti‑metaphysical and analytically oriented lines.

2. Chronological Boundaries and Periodization

2.1 Conventional Dating

Most scholars assign the Uppsala School an active life roughly from 1910 to 1960, with blurred edges at both ends. The usual starting marker is Axel Hägerström’s appointment as professor of practical philosophy at Uppsala in 1911, which institutionally anchored his already developing critique of values and metaphysics. The approximate end point is the retirement or death of the second generation—notably Konrad Marc‑Wogau and Ingemar Hedenius—and the subsequent pluralization of Swedish philosophy.

A commonly cited chronological scheme is:

2.2 Pre‑history and Aftermath

Some historians extend the pre‑history of the movement back into Hägerström’s early writings, such as Social utilism (1909), arguing that its core theses predate his Uppsala professorship. Others stress the continuity with late neo‑Kantian and idealist debates in Sweden, portraying the School as a radicalization rather than a complete rupture.

On the post‑1960 side, there is disagreement about when, or whether, the School truly “ends.” One influential view holds that by the 1960s its methodological commitments had been absorbed into a more general Scandinavian analytic philosophy, making a distinct “school” obsolete. Another emphasizes the persistence of Hägerströmian themes in Swedish legal theory and moral philosophy well into the late 20th century, and therefore prefers to speak of a transition rather than a sharp break.

2.3 Status as a Historical Construct

The periodization is widely recognized as a “distinct historical construct” rather than a self‑consciously defined era. Proponents of this framing argue that it helps illuminate patterns in Swedish intellectual life and legal reform; critics caution that it can obscure internal diversity and overstate both unity and influence. Nonetheless, the 1910–1960 window remains the standard chronological boundary in reference works and specialized histories.

3. Historical and Political Context in Sweden

3.1 From Agrarian Monarchy to Welfare State

The Uppsala School developed during a period in which Sweden was transformed from a predominantly agrarian constitutional monarchy into an industrial social‑democratic welfare state. Between roughly 1910 and 1960, the country experienced:

• Progressive democratization (extension of suffrage, parliamentary reforms)
• Rapid industrialization and urbanization
• The formation of the folkhemmet (“people’s home”) model, emphasizing social equality and state responsibility

These developments created a political climate favorable to rational planning, bureaucratic expertise, and legal modernization, to which Uppsala philosophers and jurists often contributed.

3.2 Party Politics and Ideological Alignments

Politically, Sweden moved from conservative dominance toward long‑term Social Democratic governance, interrupted but not overturned by periods of coalition rule. In this setting:

• The conservative‑Lutheran establishment tended to defend the intellectual authority of the church and traditional moral conceptions.
• Many Uppsala‑affiliated thinkers aligned themselves, explicitly or implicitly, with liberal or social‑democratic currents, especially in their support for secular education, expanded civil liberties, and legal reform.

However, the School was not a political party faction. Its members differed on specific policy questions, and some emphasized the importance of keeping philosophical inquiry value‑free, especially in jurisprudence.

3.3 Church, State, and Secularization

The Church of Sweden was a state church throughout the period, with formal ties to education, civil registration, and various public rituals. Uppsala’s critique of theological and moral claims intersected with wider debates about:

• Religious instruction in schools
• Conscientious objection and freedom of belief
• The propriety of clergy holding quasi‑official public roles

Proponents of the School’s outlook argued that state institutions should be ideologically neutral and refrain from endorsing contested religious doctrines. Critics viewed this as undermining Sweden’s cultural and moral heritage.

3.4 International Conflicts and Neutrality

World War I, the inter‑war crises, World War II, and the early Cold War all formed part of the backdrop. Sweden’s policy of neutrality enabled relative internal stability, but the wars intensified concerns about irrational nationalism, ideological fanaticism, and the misuse of metaphysical or religious rhetoric in politics. Advocates of the Uppsala approach frequently presented their emphasis on critical reason and conceptual clarity as an antidote to such dangers, whereas opponents sometimes charged them with fostering moral relativism or political passivity.

4. Scientific, Cultural, and Academic Milieu

4.1 Dominance of German and Later Anglo‑American Scholarship

At the beginning of the period, Swedish academic life was strongly oriented toward German universities, especially in philosophy, theology, and legal studies. Many Uppsala scholars were trained in, or deeply influenced by, German neo‑Kantianism, historicism, and early phenomenology, even as they came to reject much of their metaphysical content.

From the 1930s onward, especially after the rise of Nazism, Anglo‑American analytic philosophy and logical empiricism became more influential. Translations and study visits contributed to the reception of developments in formal logic, philosophy of science, and metaethics. Uppsala thinkers were among the mediators of this shift.

4.2 Status of the Natural Sciences

The prestige of the natural sciences was high throughout the era. Physics, biology, and later psychology were seen as paradigms of rational knowledge. Uppsala philosophers often appealed to:

• The success of empirical science as evidence that metaphysical speculation is dispensable
• The formal rigor of logic and mathematics as models for philosophical clarity

At the same time, some humanists and theologians warned that this scientistic orientation risked marginalizing questions of meaning, value, and historical understanding.

4.3 Academic Structure and University Culture

Uppsala University, with its long tradition as a leading Swedish institution, was characterized by relatively small faculties and intense professorial authority. Chairs in philosophy and law carried significant power over curricula and appointments. The consolidation of the Uppsala School was facilitated by this structure, as the influence of a few key professors could shape the intellectual formation of generations of students.

Within the humanities, philological and historical methods remained central. Philosophers at Uppsala often combined:

• Detailed textual scholarship (especially in history of philosophy and law)
• With systematic conceptual analysis

Some historians suggest that this combination helped anchor anti‑metaphysical doctrines in a broader culture of scholarship, while others argue that it sometimes limited engagement with emerging continental movements.

4.4 Wider Cultural Debates

Swedish culture in this period saw vivid debates over:

• Sexual morality and family law
• Education reform and the role of religion in schools
• Freedom of expression and censorship

Uppsala philosophers and allied jurists frequently intervened in these discussions, not only as academics but as public intellectuals. Their contributions were shaped by, and in turn helped shape, the scientific and academic milieu that favored rational argumentation, clarity of language, and skepticism toward traditional authority.

5. The Zeitgeist: Anti‑Metaphysical and Secular

5.1 Anti‑Metaphysical Orientation

The period in which the Uppsala School flourished was marked by a pronounced suspicion toward metaphysics—understood as claims about transcendent realities, essences, or non‑empirical entities. Within this zeitgeist:

• Many Swedish philosophers regarded traditional metaphysical systems as obscure, unverifiable, or linguistically confused.
• Influences from scientific naturalism, logical analysis, and legal positivism reinforced the sense that only empirically grounded or logically precise claims merited serious attention.

Uppsala thinkers played a prominent role in articulating and institutionalizing this attitude, but they were also part of a broader European shift away from speculative idealism.

5.2 Secular Mood and Critique of Authority

The same decades saw a gradual, though uneven, secularization of Swedish public life. The intellectual climate favored:

• Autonomy of science and education from ecclesiastical control
• A view of morality and law as human practices rather than divine mandates
• Skepticism toward appeals to revelation or tradition as ultimate authorities

Advocates of the Uppsala outlook interpreted religious and moral doctrines through the lens of psychology, sociology, or linguistic analysis, rather than as statements of objective truth. Critics argued that this undermined shared values and weakened social cohesion.

5.3 Conceptual and Linguistic Turn

The zeitgeist also included a strong “linguistic” or “conceptual” turn in philosophy:

• Questions about what can be meaningfully said replaced efforts to describe the ultimate structure of reality.
• Philosophical problems were increasingly recast as problems about the use of words, conceptual confusion, or category errors.

Uppsala philosophers contributed Swedish‑language articulations of these themes, often insisting that careful analysis could dissolve, rather than solve, many inherited philosophical puzzles.

5.4 Tensions and Counter‑Currents

Despite the prominence of anti‑metaphysical and secular attitudes, they never went unchallenged. Theologians, idealists, phenomenologists, and some humanists defended:

• The legitimacy of metaphysical reflection on being, meaning, or value
• The indispensability of religious or existential perspectives for understanding human life

Thus, the zeitgeist was not monolithic. It consisted of an influential constellation of scientific rationalism, secular critique, and linguistic analysis, constantly negotiated through debate with alternative visions of philosophy’s role.

6. Foundational Doctrines: Value‑Nihilism and Non‑Cognitivism

6.1 Value‑Nihilism (Axiological Nihilism)

A central doctrinal core of the Uppsala School is value‑nihilism, most elaborately associated with Axel Hägerström. The thesis, in one influential formulation, holds that:

• There are no objective value properties (such as goodness, rightness, or moral worth) instantiated in the world.
• Statements like “X is good” or “Y is just” do not describe matters of fact capable of being true or false in the way that empirical or logical statements do.

Different interpreters disagree on whether Hägerström meant to deny all normativity or only the existence of intrinsic or absolute values. Some read him as a thoroughgoing moral nihilist; others as primarily a critic of specific ontological claims about objective values while allowing room for practical or social norms.

6.2 Non‑Cognitivism about Moral and Religious Language

Closely linked is the School’s non‑cognitivist stance. Many Uppsala philosophers argued that:

• Moral utterances function primarily as expressions of emotion, attitudes, or commands, rather than reports of facts.
• Religious language similarly fails, in their view, to state empirically meaningful or logically analyzable propositions about a transcendent reality.

This line of thought parallels developments in Anglo‑American emotivism, though there is debate about whether Uppsala non‑cognitivism is best understood as emotivist, prescriptivist, or as a distinct hybrid.

6.3 Arguments and Justifications

Supporters offered several types of argument:

• Semantic analysis: attempts to show that value terms cannot be defined without circularity or reference to non‑empirical “oughts.”
• Epistemological considerations: claims that there is no method for detecting or verifying value properties analogous to scientific observation.
• Psychological and sociological observations: pointing to the variability of moral codes as evidence against objective moral facts.

Critics questioned each step, arguing, for example, that moral realism can accommodate epistemic fallibility, or that variability does not entail non‑existence of objective values.

6.4 Implications within the School

Within the Uppsala milieu, value‑nihilism and non‑cognitivism were applied to:

• Ethics: reinterpreting moral philosophy as analysis of normative language and attitudes.
• Law: challenging natural‑law theories and grounding legal validity in social facts.
• Religion: subjecting theological assertions to scrutiny regarding their cognitive status.

Later members of the School sometimes softened or re‑interpreted these doctrines, for instance by exploring how norms can be binding within a community without presupposing objective value properties. This internal evolution is an important theme in assessments of the School’s doctrinal coherence.

7. Central Philosophical Problems and Debates

7.1 Status of Values and Normativity

The most persistent problem was the status of values:

• Are moral and legal norms truth‑apt or not?
• Can there be rational justification of ethical claims if there are no objective values?

Debates arose both within the Uppsala orbit—over the exact form of value‑nihilism and non‑cognitivism—and between Uppsala thinkers and their opponents, including theologians and moral realists.

7.2 Legitimacy and Scope of Metaphysics

Uppsala philosophers questioned whether traditional metaphysical claims are meaningful:

• What, if anything, do statements about “essences,” “substances,” or “the Absolute” assert?
• Can talk of God, the soul, or free will be given a clear, testable content?

Proponents often argued that many metaphysical disputes dissolve under analysis of language. Critics contended that this view rests on a contested theory of meaning and fails to appreciate non‑empirical forms of understanding.

7.3 Nature of Legal Obligation and Validity

In jurisprudence, key problems included:

• What makes a rule a legal norm rather than a mere habit or moral precept?
• How should one understand legal obligation if not as grounded in moral duty or natural law?

These issues became focal points in the development of Scandinavian legal realism, exploring the relationships among sanctions, institutional practices, and judicial decision‑making.

7.4 Analysis of Religious and Theological Language

Another central topic was the nature of religious belief:

• Do religious sentences purport to describe facts?
• Are they instead expressions of commitment, existential stance, or moral orientation?

Uppsala critiques questioned the coherence of many theological doctrines and their compatibility with a scientific worldview, while defenders of religion proposed alternative understandings of faith and revelation.

7.5 Methodological Role of Logic and Language

Finally, there were ongoing discussions about philosophical method:

• Is philosophy primarily conceptual analysis?
• How do developments in formal logic impact traditional problems such as causation, identity, or modality?

Some Uppsala figures moved toward a more technical engagement with logic and philosophy of science; others maintained a broader, historically informed style of analysis. The balance between formal rigor and historical‑hermeneutic sensitivity became a recurring issue in internal debates.

8. Major Schools and Currents Active in the Era

8.1 Uppsala School and Its Immediate Circle

The core current was the Uppsala School itself, characterized by:

• Value‑nihilism and non‑cognitivism
• An anti‑metaphysical orientation
• Emphasis on conceptual and linguistic analysis

Around it clustered related thinkers in law, political science, and public debate who adopted similar attitudes without always endorsing every doctrinal point.

8.2 Scandinavian Legal Realism

Closely related but institutionally more dispersed was Scandinavian legal realism, represented by figures such as Vilhelm Lundstedt, Karl Olivecrona, and Alf Ross. While not all were based in Uppsala, they shared:

• Rejection of natural law and objective legal values
• Focus on law as social facts, practices, and institutional norms
• Interest in the psychology of legal officials and the predictability of court decisions

Some historians treat this as a sub‑school of the broader Uppsala movement; others emphasize its relative independence and cross‑national scope.

8.3 Residual Idealism and Neo‑Kantianism

During the early phases, Swedish philosophy still contained strong elements of:

• Idealism, stressing the primacy of consciousness or spirit
• Neo‑Kantianism, emphasizing the role of conceptual schemes and a priori forms in structuring experience

These currents formed the main foil for early Uppsala polemics. While they gradually declined in institutional power, their representatives continued to argue for a critical metaphysics and for the irreducibility of normative and cultural phenomena.

8.4 Theological and Christian Philosophical Currents

Lutheran theology remained influential at Uppsala and Lund. Theologians such as Gustaf Aulén and Anders Nygren advanced:

• Historically grounded and phenomenologically sensitive accounts of Christian faith
• Arguments for the objectivity of Christian moral claims

They often positioned themselves in direct opposition to Uppsala value‑nihilism, viewing it as incompatible with central Christian doctrines.

8.5 Emerging Analytic, Phenomenological, and Humanistic Alternatives

Alongside these major currents existed several minority or evolving traditions:

• Early Scandinavian analytic philosophy that drew on logic and philosophy of language but did not share Uppsala’s strong axiological nihilism.
• Phenomenological and existential approaches, focusing on lived experience, meaning, and subjectivity.
• Humanistic and historicist approaches in the humanities that sought to preserve more value‑laden and interpretive perspectives.

These currents sometimes overlapped with Uppsala methods (e.g., attention to language) while differing sharply over the scope of metaphysics and the status of values.

9. Internal Chronology and Generational Shifts

9.1 Foundational Hägerström Phase (1910–1930)

The first phase centers on Axel Hägerström’s professorship and the initial consolidation of his views. Key features include:

• Development of value‑nihilism and anti‑metaphysical arguments
• Early applications to Roman law and critiques of natural law
• Attraction of a circle of students and younger colleagues

The orientation remained strongly influenced by German scholarship, and the movement was largely national in scope.

9.2 Consolidation and Second Generation (1930–1945)

In the second phase, a younger generation—including Konrad Marc‑Wogau, Ingemar Hedenius, and Anders Wedberg—systematized and expanded the program:

• Greater engagement with formal logic and logical empiricism
• Institutionalization of Uppsala doctrines in philosophy curricula and legal education
• Internal discussions about how precisely to formulate non‑cognitivism and the critique of metaphysics

The School’s orientation became more explicitly analytic, while remaining anchored in Hägerström’s central theses.

9.3 Public Controversy and Internationalization (1945–1960)

After World War II, the Uppsala tradition entered a phase of high public visibility and international connection:

• Hedenius’s works on ethics and religion sparked intense public debate.
• Marc‑Wogau and others deepened contacts with Anglo‑American analytic philosophy.
• Some members began to moderate or reinterpret strict value‑nihilism, integrating insights from newer metaethical and linguistic theories.

During this period, the School’s doctrines blended into a broader Scandinavian analytic scene, reducing the sense of a sharply bounded group.

9.4 Timeline Overview

Discussions continue about whether later decades should be described as a fourth phase (post‑school analytic pluralism) or as entirely beyond the Uppsala School proper.

10. Key Figures of the Uppsala School

10.1 First Generation: Founders and Early Systematizers

Axel Hägerström (1868–1939) is widely regarded as the founding figure. His work on value‑nihilism, critiques of metaphysics, and studies of Roman law set the intellectual agenda. His lectures at Uppsala shaped a generation of philosophers and jurists.

Vilhelm Lundstedt (1882–1955), a jurist, drew on Hägerström’s ideas to attack natural law and develop a realist, sociologically informed account of legal validity. He played a crucial role in transmitting Uppsala themes into legal theory.

Karl Olivecrona (1897–1980), especially in his early work, aligned with Hägerström’s critique of legal metaphysics and later became a central figure in Scandinavian legal realism. His relationship to the “Uppsala School” label is debated, given his institutional base in Lund and his more independent trajectory.

10.2 Second Generation: Academic Consolidators

Konrad Marc‑Wogau (1902–1991) helped integrate modern logic and analytic method into Uppsala teaching. He is often credited with systematizing and broadening the philosophical program, moving it closer to international analytic standards.

Ingemar Hedenius (1908–1982) became famous both academically and as a public intellectual. His critiques of Christianity and his defense of a secular, rational ethics made him one of Sweden’s most widely known philosophers.

Anders Wedberg (1913–1978) contributed to the history of philosophy from an analytically informed perspective. His multi‑volume Filosofins historia introduced generations of Swedish students to philosophical traditions interpreted through a critical, anti‑metaphysical lens.

10.3 Associated Legal Realists and Allies

Figures such as Per Olof Ekelöf, Erik Rappe, and Torsten Thyrén transferred Uppsala themes into more specialized legal scholarship, particularly in procedural law and doctrine of evidence. Herbert Tingsten, a political scientist and editor, shared the School’s secular and rationalist outlook and amplified its impact in public debates, though he was not a philosopher by training.

10.4 Critics and Opponents as Defining Counterparts

Although not members, theologians like Gustaf Aulén and Anders Nygren functioned as important dialogue partners and opponents. Their critiques of value‑nihilism and defense of Christian conceptions of love and atonement helped shape how Uppsala figures articulated and defended their positions.

11. Landmark Texts and Doctrinal Formulations

11.1 Hägerström’s Early and Systematic Works

Hägerström’s Social utilism: En kritisk undersökning av den moraliska värdeläran (1909) is often treated as a pre‑foundational text, in which he attacks utilitarian value theory and anticipates his mature claim that value judgments lack objective truth. Later works, especially German‑language studies such as Der römische Obligationsbegriff im Lichte der allgemeinen römischen Rechtsanschauung (1927), apply his critiques to Roman legal concepts. These writings articulate his view that legal and moral notions are infused with mythical or quasi‑metaphysical assumptions.

11.2 Lundstedt and the Concept of Legal Validity

In Der Begriff der Geltung in der Rechtsphilosophie (1938), Vilhelm Lundstedt targeted traditional notions of Geltung (validity), arguing that they smuggle in moral or metaphysical content. He proposed replacing talk of validity with analysis of social effectiveness, sanctions, and policy considerations. This work became a cornerstone of Scandinavian legal realism and a clear doctrinal expression of Uppsala‑inspired skepticism toward natural law.

11.3 Hedenius’s Publicly Oriented Philosophy

Ingemar Hedenius’s Moralen utan Gud? (1949) is frequently cited as a landmark in Swedish secularization debates. It argues that Christian morality lacks a rational foundation and that ethical discourse does not require a theistic basis. Hedenius formulates criteria of intellectual honesty and coherence that, he contends, traditional theology fails to meet.

"

“En tro som inte tål den fria undersökningen kan inte fordras av den intellektuellt hederlige.”

— Hedenius, Moralen utan Gud?

This and related writings articulated a popularized version of non‑cognitivism and anti‑theological critique that resonated far beyond academic circles.

11.4 Wedberg’s History of Philosophy

Anders Wedberg’s Filosofins historia (1958 and subsequent volumes) did not introduce new doctrines in the narrow sense, but it played an important role in canon formation and doctrinal transmission. By interpreting historical figures through an analytic, anti‑metaphysical lens, the work helped embed Uppsala sensibilities in Swedish philosophical education.

11.5 Representative Themes and Formulations

Taken together, these and other texts crystallized several core formulations:

• Values as non‑existent or non‑objective entities.
• Law as a system of socially enforced norms, not grounded in moral truth.
• Religion as cognitively problematic, to be assessed via criteria of clarity and coherence.
• Philosophy as conceptual analysis, often modeled on logic and science.

Subsequent scholars have debated how uniformly these themes were held and how they evolved over time, but the listed works are widely recognized as landmarks for understanding the Uppsala School’s doctrinal profile.

12. The Uppsala School and Legal Realism

12.1 Conceptual Links between Philosophy and Jurisprudence

The Uppsala School’s impact on law is most visible in Scandinavian legal realism, which shares several core commitments:

• Rejection of natural law and objective legal values
• Emphasis on law as empirical social phenomena
• Focus on the behavior and attitudes of legal officials and citizens

Hägerström’s value‑nihilism undercut theories that grounded legal validity in moral principles. Jurists influenced by him sought non‑moral accounts of what makes a norm legal.

12.2 Lundstedt and the Social Function of Law

Vilhelm Lundstedt argued that legal science should abandon the concept of legal validity (Geltung) as metaphysical and instead analyze:

• How norms function within society
• The role of sanctions and coercion
• The social utility and consequences of legal rules

He maintained that appeals to natural rights or justice disguise ideological preferences as objective truths.

12.3 Olivecrona, Ross, and the Reality of Legal Norms

Karl Olivecrona and Alf Ross developed related but distinct realist accounts. Olivecrona described legal rules as independent imperatives—linguistic instruments that influence behavior, without presupposing an objective realm of norms. Ross framed law in terms of predictive statements about what courts will do, integrated with a theory of directive language.

Although Ross worked in Copenhagen and sometimes distanced himself from Hägerström’s more extreme formulations, many commentators view these jurists as part of a common Scandinavian realist family, sharing Uppsala’s suspicion of value metaphysics.

12.4 Controversies and Criticisms

The realist reinterpretation of law generated extensive debate:

• Critics argued that abandoning concepts like justice and rights leaves legal theory normatively empty.
• Some maintained that value‑nihilism is incompatible with ordinary legal reasoning, which appears to rely on evaluative judgments.
• Others contended that realist accounts cannot adequately explain legal obligation if they reduce norms to predictions or social facts.

Realists replied that their approach clarifies, rather than undermines, legal practice by exposing the real grounds of judicial decisions and legislative choices.

12.5 Long‑Term Influence

Regardless of these controversies, Uppsala‑inspired legal realism significantly influenced:

• The way law is taught in Swedish universities
• Judicial and legislative discussion of policy versus principle
• Comparative studies of legal positivism

Its legacy remains a central topic in legal philosophy, particularly in debates over the relationship between law and morality.

13. Critiques of Religion and Theological Thought

13.1 Philosophical Basis of the Critique

The Uppsala School’s critique of religion rests on its non‑cognitivist and anti‑metaphysical commitments. Many of its representatives argued that:

• Central religious claims (e.g., about God’s existence, providence, or revelation) lack clear, testable content.
• Theological language often mixes descriptive, emotive, and prescriptive elements in ways that obscure its logical status.

From this perspective, religion is not so much false as cognitively problematic: its statements do not meet the standards of meaningful assertion used in science and everyday empirical discourse.

13.2 Hedenius and Public Debate

Ingemar Hedenius became the most prominent critic of Christianity in mid‑20th‑century Sweden. In Moralen utan Gud? and later works, he advanced several related theses:

• Christian doctrines are internally inconsistent or conflict with basic moral intuitions.
• A modern, scientifically informed person cannot, without intellectual dishonesty, accept certain traditional dogmas.
• Ethics is autonomous from theology; appeals to God add nothing essential to moral reasoning.

His arguments sparked extensive public controversy, drawing responses from theologians, church leaders, and lay intellectuals.

13.3 Theological Responses

Theologians such as Gustaf Aulén and Anders Nygren contested Uppsala critiques on several fronts:

• They argued that religious language operates in a distinct symbolic or existential register, not adequately captured by criteria of empirical verification.
• They defended the possibility of objective religious knowledge, grounded in revelation, historical events, or phenomenological analysis of faith.
• Some accused Uppsala philosophers of relying on a reductionist conception of reason that ignores dimensions of meaning and experience central to religion.

These debates contributed to a re‑examination of natural theology, the concept of faith, and the epistemic status of religious belief in Scandinavian theology.

13.4 Religion, Education, and the State

Uppsala‑inspired critiques also had practical implications for:

• Religious instruction in public schools
• The role of the state church in civic life
• The legitimacy of clerical influence over public policy

Proponents argued for stricter separation of church and state and for an educational system free from confessional commitments. Opponents warned that such secularization could erode the moral and cultural foundations of society.

13.5 Assessments of the Critique

Historians and philosophers differ in their assessments:

• Some see Uppsala critiques as a coherent extension of its semantic and epistemic principles, exposing unwarranted claims to knowledge.
• Others argue they underestimate the complexity of religious practices and forms of life, or that they rely on a narrow scientistic ideal of rationality.

In any case, these critiques played a major role in reshaping the intellectual landscape of religion in mid‑20th‑century Sweden.

14. Relationship to International Analytic and Logical Empiricist Movements

14.1 Points of Convergence

The Uppsala School shares significant affinities with logical empiricism and early analytic philosophy:

• Emphasis on clarity of language and logical analysis
• Critique of metaphysics as meaningless or confused
• Interest in the structure of scientific explanation and the status of theoretical entities
• Development of non‑cognitivist views about moral statements, paralleling Anglo‑American emotivism

These parallels have led some commentators to treat Uppsala philosophy as a regional variant of the broader analytic movement.

14.2 Independent Origins and Distinctives

At the same time, many scholars stress that Uppsala’s development was relatively independent:

• Hägerström’s key ideas predate the main works of the Vienna Circle and were shaped by neo‑Kantian and German legal debates.
• The focus on value‑nihilism and legal concepts gives Uppsala a profile different from the more science‑centered programs of Vienna or Berlin.

Some interpret the School as standing between GermanCritical philosophy and Anglo‑American analysis, combining elements of both.

14.3 Channels of Influence

From the 1930s onward, influence became more reciprocal:

• Uppsala philosophers engaged with works by Carnap, Wittgenstein, and British analytic thinkers.
• International scholars took interest in Scandinavian legal realism and Uppsala metaethics, though the language barrier limited immediate reception.

Comparative studies have noted similarities between Hägerström and later metaethicists, but direct lines of influence are often difficult to document.

14.4 Areas of Divergence

There were also significant differences:

• Many logical empiricists focused on verification and the logical syntax of scientific language; Uppsala thinkers devoted more attention to values, law, and religion.
• Some analytic philosophers maintained more room for metaphysical or modal inquiry than Uppsala’s stricter anti‑metaphysical stance would allow.

Moreover, Uppsala philosophers generally did not form a transnational organization comparable to the Vienna Circle, and their work remained more nationally embedded.

14.5 Historiographical Interpretations

Current scholarship offers multiple interpretations:

• One view sees Uppsala as an early, partly independent node in a wider network of analytic and empiricist movements.
• Another emphasizes local specificity, treating it as primarily a Swedish intellectual phenomenon with only partial overlap with international analytic trends.
• A third highlights mutual but uneven influence, suggesting that the relation is best understood as a case of convergent evolution shaped by shared scientific and cultural pressures.

15. Dissidents, Opponents, and Alternative Traditions

15.1 Theological and Christian Philosophical Opposition

A major line of opposition came from Lutheran theologians and Christian philosophers, particularly at Uppsala and Lund. They rejected:

• The denial of objective values and moral truths
• The characterization of religious language as non‑cognitive or meaningless

Figures like Gustaf Aulén and Anders Nygren developed alternative accounts of Christian concepts (atonement, love) and faith, aiming to demonstrate their intelligibility and normative force.

15.2 Idealist and Neo‑Kantian Critics

Representatives of residual Swedish idealism and neo‑Kantianism objected that the Uppsala School:

• Misconstrued metaphysics as mere pseudo‑science
• Neglected the constitutive role of conceptual frameworks, categories, and values in human experience

They defended forms of critical metaphysics or transcendental philosophy that sought to ground objectivity without appealing to naive realism or theological dogma.

15.3 Phenomenological and Existential Alternatives

Phenomenological and existential trends, though less institutionally dominant, offered different models of philosophical inquiry:

• Emphasizing lived experience, intentionality, and existential meaning
• Arguing that certain aspects of human life (e.g., anxiety, guilt, hope) cannot be adequately captured by purely logical analysis

These movements sometimes converged with theological currents, and sometimes with secular humanism, but in either case they challenged Uppsala’s methodological reduction of philosophy to conceptual analysis.

15.4 Humanistic and Historicist Approaches

Within the humanities, historicist and hermeneutic scholars emphasized:

• The interpretive nature of understanding texts, traditions, and cultures
• The centrality of values and norms in historical explanation

They questioned whether a strictly value‑free, scientifically modeled philosophy could account for the richness of cultural life.

15.5 Internal Dissent and Modification

Even within the Uppsala milieu, there were gradations of commitment:

• Some students and colleagues accepted the methodological anti‑metaphysical stance but hesitated to embrace full value‑nihilism.
• Others explored ways to reconstruct normativity in terms of intersubjective practices, language games, or social conventions, thereby softening the original doctrine.

These internal variations have led some historians to treat the School less as a monolithic bloc and more as a field of tensions in which dissident voices played a significant role.

16. Transition, Decline, and Institutional Normalization

16.1 Factors in the Waning of a Distinct “School”

Several factors contributed to the decline of the Uppsala School as a clearly demarcated movement:

• Generational turnover: the death of Hägerström and retirement of key second‑generation figures reduced personal continuity.
• Intellectual diversification: post‑war Swedish philosophy became more open to continental approaches, new strands of analytic philosophy, and interdisciplinary work.
• Internal critique: questions about the coherence and extremity of value‑nihilism led some successors to modify or abandon core theses.

As a result, the sense of belonging to a unified “School” weakened over time.

16.2 Normalization of Methods and Themes

Many of the School’s methodological commitments—emphasis on clarity, careful use of language, and engagement with logic—became part of standard philosophical practice in Sweden. Similarly:

• In law, realist and positivist assumptions came to dominate curricula.
• In public discourse, secular and scientific framings of moral and political issues became increasingly common.

This normalization meant that key aspects of the Uppsala outlook no longer marked a distinctive faction; they formed the backdrop against which new debates unfolded.

16.3 Institutional and Disciplinary Shifts

Institutional changes also played a role:

• Expansion of universities and new philosophy departments diluted Uppsala’s former centrality.
• Specialization within philosophy led to subfields (e.g., philosophy of mind, language, science) that did not map neatly onto earlier school boundaries.
• Interdisciplinary programs in social sciences and humanities reduced philosophy’s monopolistic role in foundational questions.

These developments made it less plausible to speak of a single, dominant Uppsala tradition.

16.4 Interpretative Debates about “Decline”

Scholars differ in how they characterize this transition:

• One view emphasizes decline: the School’s more radical theses were gradually perceived as untenable, leading to fragmentation.
• Another stresses success and diffusion: the movement’s main aims were achieved to such an extent that the label “Uppsala School” became redundant.
• A third sees a reconfiguration, where elements of the tradition were integrated into broader Scandinavian analytic philosophy alongside other influences.

These competing narratives highlight the complexity of tracing intellectual continuity and change across institutional and generational boundaries.

17. Legacy and Historical Significance

17.1 Influence on Scandinavian Legal Theory

The Uppsala School’s most widely acknowledged legacy lies in Scandinavian legal realism. Its critiques of natural law and of metaphysical notions of legal validity helped shape:

• The training of lawyers and judges in Sweden and neighboring countries
• Comparative debates about legal positivism, realism, and the nature of legal obligation
• The framing of law as an object of empirical and policy‑oriented study

Subsequent legal theorists, even when critical of strict realism, generally engage with problems first articulated in Uppsala‑inspired jurisprudence.

17.2 Contribution to Secularization and Public Culture

In Swedish public life, Uppsala philosophers—especially Hedenius—played a visible role in promoting secular and critical attitudes toward religion and traditional morality. Historians of religion and society often attribute to them:

• Acceleration of secularization, particularly in education and media
• Erosion of the state church’s intellectual authority
• Establishment of freedom of conscience and intellectual honesty as central civic ideals

How decisive this contribution was, relative to broader social changes, remains a matter of debate, but few dispute its symbolic importance.

17.3 Place in the History of Analytic Philosophy

In the international context, the Uppsala School is increasingly recognized as:

• An early, regionally distinctive branch of analytic and scientific philosophy
• A forerunner or parallel to developments in metaethics and philosophy of language concerning normative discourse
• A case study in how analytic methods interact with local legal and religious institutions

Some historians highlight its relative neglect in standard Anglophone narratives and advocate a more polycentric history of analytic philosophy that includes Uppsala alongside Vienna, Cambridge, and other centers.

17.4 Ongoing Critical Appraisal

Modern historiography offers a nuanced assessment:

• Strengths are seen in its rigorous critique of obscure metaphysics, its integration of logic and law, and its role in modernizing Swedish intellectual life.
• Limitations are noted in its sometimes rigid value‑nihilism, the tendency to equate meaning with empirical or logical verifiability, and occasional underestimation of phenomenological and hermeneutic insights.

Debates continue over whether Uppsala’s anti‑metaphysical stance is ultimately self‑undermining, and whether its non‑cognitivism can account for the normative force of moral and legal discourse.

17.5 Contemporary Relevance

Contemporary philosophers and legal theorists revisit Uppsala ideas in discussions of:

• The nature of normativity and reasons for action
• The role of values in legal interpretation and constitutional adjudication
• The relationship between science, religion, and public reason

In these contexts, the Uppsala School functions both as a historical source of arguments and as a critical foil, illustrating one influential way of connecting analytic method, legal theory, and secular culture in the 20th century.