Sunday, May 6, 2012

Contemporary Scholasticism

Ontos Verlag, the international publisher in philosophy and mathematical logic, is pleased to present the new book series:


EDITED BY

Edward Feser • Edmund Runggaldier

ADVISORY BOARD

Brian Davies, Fordham University, U.S.A.
Christian Kanzian, University of Innsbruck, Austria
Gyula Klima, Fordham University, U.S.A.
David S. Oderberg, University of Reading, U.K.
Eleonore Stump, Saint Louis University, U.S.A.

Contemporary Scholasticism is a new book series providing a forum for the growing community of philosophers who are interested in applying insights drawn from the Aristotelian and Scholastic traditions to current philosophical debates.

The first volume of this new series, Metaphysics: Aristotelian, Scholastic, Analytic, has now been published.  Edited by Lukáš Novák, Daniel D. Novotný, Prokop Sousedík, and David Svoboda, the volume is the fruit of the conference of the same name held in Prague in 2010, and contains many of the papers there presented.

11 comments:

Geoffrey said...

Dear Mr. Feser,

I'd like to order the text, but trying to navigate the Lehman's link is proving too difficult. I also see that it isn't available at either Amazon or Alibris. Any help here would be most appreciated.

Tuomas said...

I have fond memories of that conference Ed! My paper isn't in this volume of course (it's in my own), but I'm glad to see that you've put one together. I heard about the new series from Rafael, I hope it does well!

Anonymous said...

Tuomas,

I was just on your website and was wondering if your Master's thesis on Grounding Metaphysics was available somewhere. I looked at my universities WorldCat and there was no entry unfortunately.

If you have a link available I would very much like to read it.

Thanks

Anonymous said...

Interested in picking up a copy - any hints as to where it can be found? Thanks!

Tuomas said...

Anonymous 6:01 -- I haven't posted my Master's thesis anywhere largely because it is rather obsolete at this point (I wrote it in 2004), but I have sent it to a few people by e-mail on request. So, if you are truly interested, drop me an e-mail and tell me something about your interests, and perhaps I can send it to you directly.

Rafael said...

This is Rafael: The book will be available in all US-bookshops, including Online bookshops in January 2013 via Ontos's partner Transaction Publishers.
If anyone needs that book earlier you may buy the e-books for only 30 EUR (that is approx. 39.60 USD) by ontoslink.com

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr Feser

Now that you've had your fun attacking Rosenberg (as if his views were mainstream orthodoxy among contemporary naturalists) when you will address more serious for naturalism? Specifically, when will you discuss the causal closure thesis? Or the arguments of David Lewis, Jaegwon Kim and Place, Armstrong et al for a materialistic view of the mind

Arthur said...

"Now that you've had your fun attacking Rosenberg... when you will address more serious [case] for naturalism?"

I think you're missing part of Feser's reason for "attacking Rosenberg" in the first place, anon. Feser and Rosenberg actually agree that Roseberg's absurd conclusions are where naturalism inevitably takes you.

Rosenberg's views aren't "mainstream" among naturalists, but part of Feser's point is that they should be.

Crude said...

Ed's talked about other views in the past as well. Dennett's and others'.

machinephilosophy said...

THIS is why Ed has to address the philosophical schizophrenia of most atheists:

Where I conflict with Quine is over his scientism. I do not think that he or Russell are right in believing that what science (natural science?) cannot tell us, we cannot know. There are all sorts of common-sense knowledge and social, political, and moral knowledge that science can tell us little (if anything) about:

that human beings stand in need of love,
that promises are generally to be kept,
that justice involves reciprocity,
that respect for others is, or at least should be, a central feature in our lives, and
that indifference to one's fellow humans is evil

are good examples. People who have no understanding of science---who even lived before the rise of science---can understand them and know them to be justified. And things are no different for us moderns. We need not wait on science to confirm or disconfirm them and for most of them at least we have no understanding of how science could confirm or disconfirm (infirm) them.


(--Very slightly redacted from Kai Nielsen, Atheism and Philosophy, New York: Prometheus, 2005, page 11, "Preface to the Paperback Edition".)

Victoria Franklin said...

Ed, are you familiar with the critique of the late Dr Glenn Martin on the tradition of scholasticism?