Can humans truly be the measure of all things? Is relativism a corrosive concept, undermining any chance we have of getting clear about things? Should we seek foundations for our values, or is such an effort a waste of time? With David Gallagher, Shannon Jordan, and Joshua Halberstam.

This book questions whether a philosophic Thomistic ethics is possible. In so doing, it stands alongside Wolfgang Kluxen’s Philosophische Ethik bei Thomas von Aquin which was, until now, the most thorough and original treatment of the issue. Kluxen argued that one could not simply extract certain “philosophical” passages from Aquinas’s theological works; rather, a philosophical ethics would require a work of interpretation. Still, he thought the project attainable. Bradley, in explicit contrast to Kluxen, argues forcefully that not only is it (...) impossible to extract a philosophical ethics from Aquinas’s own works, but it is also impossible to develop any systematic philosophical ethics that could be properly called “Thomistic.”. (shrink)

This book aims to present Thomas Aquinas’s theory of natural law as a cogent theory of ethics for those trained in Anglo-American analytic philosophy. To this end, Lisska explains the Thomistic theory in language intelligible to those untrained in scholastic philosophy and also takes up modern criticisms leveled against Aquinas with respect to his naturalism, his reliance on an outmoded metaphysics of essences, his failure to acknowledge the is/ought distinction, the absence of categorical imperatives, and so forth. In addition, Lisska (...) locates his own interpretation of Aquinas’s theory among other contemporary interpretations, particularly those of John Finnis and Henry Veatch. (shrink)

With this book Salkever issues a timely call for political and ethical theory to return to more classical modes of theorizing. His central claim is that Aristotle's approach to social science as presented in the Nicomachean Ethics and Politics, an approach which cuts across many modern dichotomies, is workable and in fact provides a more adequate framework for understanding modern political practice than any modern theory. He looks to Aristotle not for the content of his political theory, but for its (...) "style" of theorizing. The book does not pretend to explicate fully Aristotle's political philosophy, but rather to encourage discussion of it ; it offers no theory of modern politics, but simply urges us to theorize in the style of Aristotle. (shrink)

In an exemplary cooperation between science and philosophy, Augros and Stanciu synthesize the discoveries and reflections of leading biologists in recent decades. More importantly, they show how these discoveries, when coupled with this century's overthrow of classical physics, calls for a new, more holistic understanding of animate beings and a philosophical re-thinking of the realm of nature as a whole. This book will be of great interest for those engaged in the philosophy of science and will undoubtedly appeal to all (...) those who suspect that the simple reductionism which modern science is purported to uphold cannot do justice to the marvelous richness and complexity of the plant and animal kingdoms. (shrink)