自由主义和批判法学是相互对立的法学流派,长期以来,自由主义居于主导地位,因为法治已经成为大多数国家的选择,民主和法治互为依托,任何对法治挑战的思想在这种趋势下必然成为非主流。法学的探索,一如其他学科,总是有一个应然和实然的状态,学术也不过是在两者之间流连反转,最终目标是趋于一致。学术的交锋应将研究推向更深层,而不是见招拆招的狭隘对立。本文从安德鲁·奥尔特曼对批判法学的回应中思考学术思想对立的应然状态——既争鸣又齐放。 Liberalism and Critical Jurisprudence are schools of law that run counter to each other. For a long time, liberalism has dominance. Because the rule of law has become the choice of most countries, democracy and the rule of law rely on each other. Any thinking of the challenge of the rule of law is inevitable under this trend Become non-mainstream. The exploration of jurisprudence, like other disciplines, always has a proper and de facto state. Academics, however, are simply reversing between the two and the ultimate goal is to converge. Academic confrontation should be pushed to a deeper level of research, rather than see the narrow confrontation between recruit and move. This essay, based on Andrew Ortemann ’s response to critical jurisprudence, thinks about what should be the opposite of academic thinking - both contention and alienation.