This edition includes a substantial new preface by the author, in which he discusses repression, determinism, transference, and practical rationality, and offers a comparison of Aristotle and Lacan on the concept of desire. MacIntyre takes the opportunity to reflect both on the reviews and criticisms of the first edition and also on his own philosophical stance.
How should we respond when some of our basic beliefs are put into question? What makes a human body distinctively human? Why is truth an important good? These are among the questions explored in this collection of essays by Alasdair MacIntyre, one of the most creative and influential philosophers working today. Ten of MacIntyre's most influential essays written over almost thirty years are collected together here for the first time. They range over such topics as the issues raised by different (...) types of relativism, what it is about human beings that cannot be understood by the natural sciences, the relationship between the ends of life and the ends of philosophical writing, and the relationship of moral philosophy to contemporary social practice. They will appeal to a wide range of readers across philosophy and especially in moral philosophy, political philosophy, and theology. (shrink)
Findlay, J. N. The contemporary relevance of Hegel.--Kaufmann, W. The Hegel myth and its method.--Kaufmann, W. The young Hegel and religion.--Hartmann, K. Hegel: a non-metaphysical view.--Solomon, R. C. Hegel's concept of "geist."--Taylor, C. The opening arguments of the Phenomenology.--Kelly, G. A. Notes on Hegel's "Lordship and bondage."--MacIntyre, A. Hegel on faces and skulls.--Kosok, M. The formalization of Hegel's dialectical logic.--Schacht, R. L. Hegel on freedom.--Avineri, S. Hegel revisted.
THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS, NOR IS THERE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. THE CHRISTIAN CAN, HOWEVER, BE JUSTIFIED IN HIS THEISTIC BELIEFS IN THE SENSE THAT HE ACCEPTS GOD ON THE BASIS OF TRUST, WHICH DEPENDS ULTIMATELY ON THE JESUS OF THE BIBLE. SKEPTICS MAY NOT BE CONVERTED BY THIS ARGUMENT, BUT THEY MAY BE LESS LIKELY TO SEE TOTAL IRRATIONALITY IN THE THEISTIC STAND AFTER READING AND UNDERSTANDING IT. (STAFF).