Al-Farabi saw himself as inheriting from Aristotle the problem of limits to political responsibility for virtue. If the state possesses the authority to habituate citizens to virtue, what are the limits to that responsibility? Aristotle establishes two main limits: the family and the size of the state. Al-Farabi rejects both. Thomas Aquinas’s view of marriage as a sacrament, on the other hand, reinforces the Aristotelian position that the family is the most basic limit to public responsibility for virtue. In fact, (...) Aquinas expands the notion of subsidiarity beyond the family. Moreover, Aquinas and Aristotle agree that political life is not only limited from “below” by the family but also from “above.” Thus, in spite of Aquinas’ views on punishing heretics and apostates, it is not the case, as Leo Strauss’ claims, that Aquinas’ Christian faith led him to increase and exaggerate political responsibility for virtue. (shrink)

This article explores the relation of the Greek notion of essence to the political philosophy of Al-Farabi Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rush’d. It argues that their various conceptions of essence influence their attitudes towards religious tolerance within the regime.

Justice Through Diversity brings together a Who’s Who of contemporary scholars in an attempt to understand one of the central commitments in the modern world.

Davidson aims at recovering the notion of intellect in the larger cosmic scheme which it occupied for these three Islamic philosophers. This applies particularly to their assimilation of Aristotle's active intellect, to which they assign a place in the hierarchy of incorporeal substances below God and above the sublunar world, and to which they add the roles of being at least a contributing cause of sublunar existence, prophecy, immortality, the highest state of human happiness, as well as the one role (...) which it clearly held for Aristotle, that is, the actualization of human thought. Davidson's work is both scholarly and highly accessible. The primary and secondary sources he has incorporated are vast. Careful attention is paid to possible influences, development of the philosopher's thought, subsequent modification of early works, and the effect of translations. Davidson's scholarship is accessible through clear writing, frequent summaries, and translation of primary sources. (shrink)

The scope of this work is wider than the title suggests. Chapter and section headings are a better measure of its breadth: Preface, “A Village of the Mind”; Chapter 1, “Why Augustine? Why Now? ”; Chapter 2, “The Earthly City and Its Discontents ”; Chapter 3, “Against the Pridefulness of Philosophy ”; Chapter 4, “Augustine’s Evil—Arendt’s Eichmann ”; Chapter 5, “‘Our Business with this Common Mortal life’— Augustine and a Politics of Limits ”; Epilogue, “Loving Crazy Horse and Augustine.”.

The first part of this work examines Augustine’s political writings in the context of his time, the second plots their trajectory into our own. The first chapter discusses Augustine’s hopes for a political career, his conversion not only to Christianity but to a contemplative life, and his reentry into an active life as a priest and bishop. TeSelle also analyzes the nature and scope of City of God, giving particular attention to Augustine’s reconsideration of the relationship of Christianity to the (...) political world after Rome’s fall. Chapter 2 focuses on the meaning of “city” in the ancient world and in City of God. Chapter 3 is concerned with the meaning of peregrinus, since citizens of the city of God are peregrini in the earthly city. (shrink)

Nagel’s most recent book is a defense of rationalism, which places the “last word” in justification within rational justifications themselves, against subjectivism, which reduces rational justifications to the first person singular or plural so that the “last word” is something more fundamental than reason. He admits that the arguments he poses against subjectivism “are as old as the hills”. There are, nonetheless, several reasons why The Last Word is important and novel. First, because the arguments “require constant repetition”, especially in (...) our own time. Beyond the subjectivism within philosophy, the “actual result [of subjectivism] has been a growth in the already extreme intellectual laziness of contemporary culture and the collapse of serious argument throughout the lower reaches of the humanities and social sciences...”. (shrink)