From the "New York Times" bestselling author of "If I Stay" Allyson Healeys life is exactly like her suitcase--packed, planned, ordered. Then on the last day of her three-week post-graduation European tour, she meets Willem. A free-spirited, roving actor, Willem is everything shes not, and when he invites her to abandon her plans and come to Paris with him, Allyson says yes. This uncharacteristic decision leads to a day of risk and romance, liberation and intimacy: 24 hours that will transform (...) Allysons life. A book about love, heartbreak, travel, identity, and the "accidents" of fate, "Just One Day" shows us how sometimes in order to get found, you first have to get lost... and how often the people we are seeking are much closer than we know. The first in a sweepingly romantic duet of novels. Willems story--"Just One Year"--is coming soon. (shrink)

This book begins with the assumption that no one can achieve a rational selection of values for his life-style unless he first understands the major modern and contemporary formulations of alternative moral ideals. To assist the reader in determining which values are more basic and deserve his loyalty, the author explores and evaluates the different value systems defended by a wide range of thinkers viz. James, Dewey, Ayn Rand, Hugh Hefner, Marx, Freud, Erich Fromm, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, Barth, Tillich, Cox, (...) Fletcher, Bishop Robinson, Brunner, Reinhold Niebuhr, Ramsey, G E Moore, A J Ayer, Toulmin and R M Hare. (shrink)

THE most prevalent interpretation of Hegel’s political philosophy charges him with a glorification and even a divinization of the Prussian State of his day at the expense of the freedom of the individual. This interpretation has its origins in the existentialist critique of Hegel. Kierkegaard, for example, in his evaluation of Hegel’s philosophy of history abhors the apparent deification of the existing State as the manifestation of the Objective Spirit since it robs the individual of his freedom, responsibility, and dignity. (...) ‘The derelict Hegelian ethics, with its desperate attempt to make the State the court of last resort, is a most unethical attempt to reduce the individual to finitude.…’ Karl Popper has helped to perpetuate this interpretation by the existentialists by claiming that according to Hegel ‘the State is everything and the individual nothing’. William Shirer has claimed that one can trace the rise of the second and third Reichs to Hegel’s ‘ringing glorification of the State as supreme in human life’. In determining the validity of this interpretation we shall examine Hegel’s statements on the nature of the ideal State, his evaluations of existing States and ancient States, and his detailed position on the rights of citizens within his ideal State. (shrink)

In introducing existentialism should one proceed by presenting a separate treatment of each existentialist or should one attempt to identify and isolate the principal themes of existentialism and interrelate the specific contributions of the major figures in the movement to the development of each theme? Professor Sanborn in this introduction inclines toward the latter method. She has organized the work according to the ontology, theory of knowledge, ethics, social philosophy, and philosophy of religion of the major existentialists. In these areas (...) she has dealt with the insights of Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Jaspers, Marcel and Sartre. While this method does allow the reader to consider each topic from several viewpoints, it does seem to have two serious limitations. It prevents the reader from appreciating the manner in which an existentialist’s ontology and epistemology often profoundly affects his ethics and his philosophy of religion or vice versa. The reader has to wait until chapter seven to discover how Sartre’s atheism lies at the root of his doctrine of freedom even though earlier chapters make many references to this doctrine. The basic unity of Sartre’s thought is thereby obscured whereas a separate treatment of each existentialist could preserve and disclose this unity, and still could include comparisons with other existentialists on some themes. A second limitation in this introduction is that it usually and almost necessarily because of the restrictions of space permits only a fragmentary consideration of the view of each existentialist on each theme. (shrink)

In his introduction to this selection of writings Hans Reiss makes the claim that Kant is not generally regarded in English-speaking countries as a political philosopher of any special significance. He gives several reasons for this neglect and misunderstanding by historians of philosophy and even by Kantian scholars. These historians have neglected Kant’s political writings because the philosophy of his three critiques has absorbed their attention almost entirely. Then too, they have not focused on his political philosophy because he did (...) not write a masterpiece in this field. Also, Kant’s works of critical philosophy are so formidable that they have made his political writings appear to historians of philosophy as much less weighty and have helped to encourage the mistaken assumption by these historians that the latter are not central to his thought. Furthermore, the rise of nationalism has prevented Kant’s work from being the dominant force in German political thought in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries which it might easily have been. The Romantic mode of thought instilled in German political thought an element of irrationalism which permeated almost all areas of German thinking for a century and a half between the Napoleonic wars and the end of the Second World War. (shrink)

In his introduction to this selection of writings Hans Reiss makes the claim that Kant is not generally regarded in English-speaking countries as a political philosopher of any special significance. He gives several reasons for this neglect and misunderstanding by historians of philosophy and even by Kantian scholars. These historians have neglected Kant’s political writings because the philosophy of his three critiques has absorbed their attention almost entirely. Then too, they have not focused on his political philosophy because he did (...) not write a masterpiece in this field. Also, Kant’s works of critical philosophy are so formidable that they have made his political writings appear to historians of philosophy as much less weighty and have helped to encourage the mistaken assumption by these historians that the latter are not central to his thought. Furthermore, the rise of nationalism has prevented Kant’s work from being the dominant force in German political thought in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries which it might easily have been. The Romantic mode of thought instilled in German political thought an element of irrationalism which permeated almost all areas of German thinking for a century and a half between the Napoleonic wars and the end of the Second World War. (shrink)

Originally published in 1959, this work, intended as an introduction, attempts to examine the views of Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Jaspers, Sartre and Marcel on a wide variety of themes without neglecting some of the influences of Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche and Husserl on the existentialist movement. It provides an analysis of the traditions which inspired the existentialists and of the traditions which they opposed.

To prepare the reader for Schiller’s ideal of freedom, Miller devotes his first chapter to an examination of Kant’s conception of moral freedom. Miller contends that Kant in the Critique of Pure Reason was already concerned with establishing the foundation for moral freedom, and he rejects Heine’s interpretation that the Critique of Practical Reason was an afterthought, a hastily added supplement written to ease Kant’s moral conscience by compensating for the first Critique. Miller observes that it appears that Kant did (...) not hold to his beliefs because of evidence, but rather sought evidence for his beliefs—in this case evidence for his abiding belief in moral freedom. To demonstrate Kant’s intention to defend moral freedom even in the first Critique, he appeals first to Kant’s claim there that freedom cannot be saved if appearances are things-in-themselves, and then to his efforts to develop the distinction between phenomena and noumena so as to allow for the exercise of moral freedom. Thus, by referring natural causality to phenomena and free causality to noumena, Kant in the first Critique had demonstrated the possibility of moral freedom in his resolution of the third antimony. Then too, in the first Critique the failure of speculative reason to trace effects to an original cause suggested the idea of a free intelligible cause operating outside the series of cause and effect. Also, already in the first Critique Kant had introduced the idea of a ‘will’ which resists the tendency of man’s sensuous inclinations to determine his actions. Furthermore, Miller reminds us that Kant in the second Critique makes frequent references to his theory of knowledge which he regards as important also for practical reason and freedom, and that Kant in the preface to the second Critique proclaims that the idea of freedom ‘forms the keystone of the whole building of a system of pure, even of speculative reason …’. Miller endorses the notion that Kant’s consistent aim was to preserve the ‘proper dignity’ of the idea of freedom by removing it from the field of possible knowledge. (shrink)

As the Minister of Public Instruction in Berlin in 1808 Humboldt founded the University of Berlin and reorganized the Prussian Gymnasium. Later, he served in several diplomatic posts, became a Prussian envoy to the Papal court, and in 1818 was for a brief period Minister of the Interior. However, the reader should be aware that Humboldt wrote The Limits of State Action in 1791 at the age of 24 after resigning his first minor post in the Prussian administration. At that (...) time he admitted that he had found administration ‘geistlos’, and this reaction may have accounted in part for his general antipathy toward state interference on behalf of the positive welfare of citizens. His belief that the vitality of a nation arises solely from the spontaneous and diverse creative energies of its citizens clearly contributed to this antipathy. (shrink)

Most of Kierkegaard’s thought can best be understood as a series of reactions to what he regarded as the excesses of Hegelian speculation. In this work Professor Hamilton provides a stimulating and comprehensive examination of these reactions. He explains in detail how Hegel’s method of direct communication with its claim to the possession of total truth provoked Kierkegaard to imitate Socrates’ ‘maieutic art’ by employing indirect communication through the use of pseudonyms. Then too, Hegel’s preoccupation with the development of the (...) Absolute in world-history served only to cause Kierkegaard to respond with his emphasis on the significance of the individual. Furthermore, the unification of the finite with the infinite within the System seemed to Kierkegaard to be a crude form of pantheism and aroused him to affirm a gulf between the creature and the Absolute. Hegel’s preoccupation with abstraction and Reason only intensified Kierkegaard’s concern for the concrete historical moment in which the individual must struggle to make his leap of faith in the face of the Absolute Paradox. Partly because the Hegelian System viewed faith as ‘an immediate certainty’, Kierkegaard could reiterate that faith is a process and must be constantly achieved. The System’s concern for objective truth and its reduction of Christianity to a philosophical doctrine only reinforced Kierkegaard’s conviction that truth is subjectivity and cannot be learned through abstractions but must be lived with intense passion. Finally, Hegel’s emphasis on a fluid logic increased Kierkegaard’s enthusiasm for the traditional logic and his insistence that this logic should not be distorted by being used to interpret the movements of freedom. In presenting these oppositions to Hegel the work can help to provide an effective introduction to Kierkegaard. However, the work is limited since it merely assumes that Kierkegaard’s interpretations of Hegel are valid. Recent scholarship, particularly by Knox and Seeberger, would indicate that some of these interpretations are highly debatable. (shrink)

This volume is a reissue of an 1889 translation of Fichte’s third book, Grundlage des Naturrechts nach Principien der Wissenschaftslehre, which first appeared in Jena in 1796. Fichte here attempts to reconcile his belief in the sacredness of the rights of the individual with his conviction that the individual is a member of a community of rational beings, and thus man develops his moral self only through relationship to others. ‘…Ego is the individual, the rational being determined as such through (...) opposition to another rational being’. His thesis is that human rights are essentially social rights and that, since the freedom of the individual implies responsibility, concrete freedom is necessarily finite. This affirmation of the limitation of a self by its relation to other selves corresponds with Fichte’s exposition of the mutual limitation of the ego and the non-ego in his theory of the intellect in his Science of Knowledge. Fichte declares that the fundamental principle of The Science of Rights is that each individual must restrict his freedom through the conception of the possibility of the freedom of the other. (shrink)

A brief reference article on cultural relativism, forthcoming in the Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, 2nd edition.

In Western political philosophy, democracy is generally the dominant view regarding what the best form of government is, and this holds even in respect to promoting minority rights. However, I argue that there is a better theory for satisfying minority interests and rights. I amass numerous studies from the social sciences demonstrating how democracy does poorly in accounting for minority interests. I then contend that a particular hybrid view that fuses a meritocracy with democracy can do a better job than (...) democracy in accounting for minority interests and in having more equal rights and fair policies coming from the legislative and executive branches. Finally, I defend this thesis from numerous counters. (shrink)

Brief biographies and summaries of the major ideas of twenty-three philosophers from Socrates to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Includes quotations from their works.

These questions-in essence 'What are flourishing lives and how can we lead them?'-are long central to philosophy. Now, however, can be addressed in light of new insights in positive psychology, psychiatry, evolutionary biology, cognitive science, and behavioral economics as well new research in philosophy itself, including feminist theory, critical race studies, philosophical psychology, neuro-ethics, and more. The thirteen contributors chart new directions for understanding and securing human flourishing. Reflecting the fact that lives and cultures differ, the perspectives are pluralistic. Part (...) One considers the meaning of human flourishing through analyses of: the nature of purposeful, mattering lives; biological, psychological, and social levels of homeostasis; the nature of human agency and the role of narrative in it; the nature of the self and self-fulfillment; the centrality of subjective values and non-subjective conditions that make possible these values; and the need to encompass the wide diversity of human lives. Part Two considers conditions on which flourishing depends. These include: habits flexible enough to confront ever-changing realities; conditions of social justice rather than supposed self-help; epistemic responsibility and sensitivity to social relations; civility and values literacy; educational reconstruction, particularly in the humanities; a cultural focus on eudaimonic values rather than mere technical efficiency and marketplace consumerism; and the role of creative arts in transforming our abilities, promoting genuine self-government, and providing consolation in the face of loss. (shrink)

_A groundbreaking examination of a central question in international relations: Do states act rationally?_ To understand world politics, you need to understand how states think. Are states rational? Much of international relations theory assumes that they are. But many scholars believe that political leaders rarely act rationally. The issue is crucial for both the study and practice of international politics, for only if states are rational can scholars and policymakers understand and predict their behavior. John J. Mearsheimer and Sebastian (...) Rosato argue that rational decisions in international politics rest on credible theories about how the world works and emerge from deliberative decision‑making processes. Using these criteria, they conclude that most states are rational most of the time, even if they are not always successful. Mearsheimer and Rosato make the case for their position, examining whether past and present world leaders, including George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin, have acted rationally in the context of momentous historical events, including both world wars, the Cold War, and the post–Cold War era. By examining this fundamental concept in a novel and comprehensive manner, Mearsheimer and Rosato show how leaders think, and how to make policy for dealing with other states. (shrink)

The other major question in the history of political philosophy besides the issue of distributive justice is what the best form of government is. In Western philosophy, the received view is democracy. However, this paper challenges this thesis by presenting arguments against democracy relying in significant part on empirical data from political science and political psychology. Moreover, it presents a general case for a hybrid view over democracy for the legislative and executive branches that appends a meritocracy or rule by (...) the merited from Eastern philosophy to democracy. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Introduction Aquinas, Aristotle, and Descriptive Metaphysics Substance and Accident Form, Matter, and Identity Individuation Substance, Causality, and Science Individuals, Universals, and Abstraction Mind and Soul Essence, Existence, and God.

An accessible and relevant introduction to the ancient Indian linguistic tradition, this book assesses the influence of Indian linguistic thought on Western linguistics. It is essential reading for scholars and students of theoretical and historical linguistics, as well as those interested in Indian languages, and Indian/South Asian Studies.

The primary purpose of government is to secure public goods that cannot be achieved by free markets. The Coordination Principle tells us to consolidate sovereign power in a single institution to overcome collective action problems that otherwise prevent secure provision of the relevant public goods. There are several public goods that require such coordination at the global level, chief among them being basic human rights. The claim that human rights require global coordination is supported in three main steps. First, I (...) consider Pogge's and Habermas's analyses as alternatives to Hobbesian conceptions of justice. Second, I consider the core conventions of international law, which are in tension with the primacy of state sovereignty in the UN system. Third, I argue that the just war tradition does not limit just causes for war to self-defense; it supports saving innocent third parties from crimes against humanity as a just reason for war. While classical authors focused less on this issue, the point is especially clear in twentieth-century just war theories, such as those offered by the American Catholic bishops, Jean Elshtain, Brian Orend, and Michael Walzer. Against Walzer, I argue that we add intractable military tyranny to the list of horrors meriting intervention if other ad bellum conditions are met. But these results require us to reexamine the "just authority" of first resort to govern such interventions. The Coordination Principle implies that we should create a transnational federation with consolidated powers in place of a treaty organization requiring near-unanimity. But to be legitimate, such a global institution must also be directly answerable to the citizens of its member states. While the UN Security Council is inadequate on both counts, a federation of democracies with a directly elected executive and legislature could meet both conditions. (shrink)

Philosophy and the advances in cosmology, neurology, molecular biology, and the social sciences have made the convincing and converging arguments for God's existence more probable than ever in history. On God's Existence is a concise summary of these arguments as well as new arguments inspired by the advances of the sciences.--Publisher description.

Over the past two centuries Western culture has largely valorized a particular kind of 'good' music--highly serious, wondrously deep, stylistically authentic, heroically created, and strikingly original--and, at the same time, has marginalized music that does not live up to those ideals. In Good Music, John J. Sheinbaum explores these traditional models for valuing music. By engaging examples such as Handel oratorios, Beethoven and Mahler symphonies, jazz improvisations, Bruce Springsteen, and prog rock, he argues that metaphors of perfection do justice (...) to neither the perceived strengths nor the assumed weaknesses of the music in question. Instead, he proposes an alternative model of appreciation where abstract notions of virtue need not dictate our understanding. Good music can, with pride, be playful rather than serious, diverse rather than unified, engaging to both body and mind, in dialogue with manifold styles and genres, and collaborative to the core. We can widen the scope of what music we value and reconsider the conventional rituals surrounding it, while retaining the joys of making music, listening closely, and caring passionately"-- $c Page [4] of cover. (shrink)

Modern medicine has produced many wonderful technological breakthroughs that have extended the limits of the frail human body. However, much of the focus of this medical research has been on the physical, often reducing the human being to a biological machine to be examined, understood, and controlled. This book begins by asking whether the modern medical milieu has overly objectified the body, unwittingly or not, and whether current studies in bioethics are up to the task of restoring a fuller understanding (...) of the human person. In response, various authors here suggest that a more theological/religious approach would be helpful, or perhaps even necessary. Presenting specific perspectives from Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the book is divided into three parts: "Understanding the Body," "Respecting the Body," and "The Body at the End of Life." A panel of expert contributors—including philosophers, physicians, and theologians and scholars of religion— answer key questions such as: What is the relationship between body and soul? What are our obligations toward human bodies? How should medicine respond to suffering and death? The resulting text is an interdisciplinary treatise on how medicine can best function in our societies. Offering a new way to approach the medical humanities, this book will be of keen interest to any scholars with an interest in contemporary religious perspectives on medicine and the body. (shrink)