Let us omit, for the present, an examination of Stammler's construction of teleology, which includes some very fine passages (_e.g._ the criticism of the anarchist doctrine) and ask instead: What is this social science of Stammler, of which we have stated the striking and characteristic features? The reader will have little difficulty in discovering that the second investigation, that concerning social teleology, is nothing but a modernised _philosophy of law_. And the first? Is it that long desired and hitherto vainly sought _general sociology_? Does it give us a new and acceptable concept of society? To us it appears evident that the first investigation is nothing but a _formal science of law_. In it Professor Stammler studies _law as a fact_, and hence he cannot find it except in _society subjected to rules imposed from without_. In the second, he studies law as an _ideal_ and constructs the philosophy (imperative) of law. We are not here questioning the _value_ of the investigation, but its _nature_. The present writer is convinced that social data leave no place for an abstract independent science. Society is a _living together_; the kind of phenomena which appear in this life together is the concern of descriptive history. But it is perfectly possible to study this life together from a given point of view, _e.g._, from the legal point of view, or, in general, from that of the legal and non-legal rules to which it can be subjected; and this Stammler has done. And, in so doing, he has examined the nature of law, separating the concrete individual laws and the ideal type of law; which he has then studied apart. This is the reason why Stammler's investigation seems to us a truly scientific investigation and very well carried out, but not an abstract and general science _of society_. Such a science is for us inconceivable, just as a formal science of law is, on the contrary, perfectly conceivable. As to the second investigation, that concerning teleology, there would be some difficulty in including it in the number of sciences if it be admitted that ideals are not subjects for science. But here Professor Stammler himself comes to our assistance by assigning the foundation of social teleology to philosophy, which he defines as the science of the True and of the Good, the science of the Absolute, and understands in a non-formal sense.