Matter and Form explores the relationship between natural science and political philosophy from the classical to contemporary eras, taking an interdisciplinary approach to the philosophic understanding of the structure and process of the natural world and its impact on the history of political philosophy. It illuminates the importance of philosophic reflection on material nature to moral and political theorizing, mediating between the sciences and humanities and making a contribution to ending the isolation between them.

Plato and the Moving Image shows how and why debates in the philosophy of film can be advanced through the study of the role of images in Plato’s dialogues, and vice versa.

This book draws out Woolf’s insights into the fundamental structures of existence and experience by showing how the empirical and contingent elements of her dramaturgy are actually in the service of a metaphysical understanding of the human condition.

This article seeks to provide an answer as to why Metaphysics, Lam ends not with the justly famous account of the divine nous with which this book of the treatise is always associated, but with an aporetic account of the living and dying of everything mortal. This surprising moment, I argue, is a manifestation of Aristotle's conviction—quite alien to the mainstream understanding of philosophy as a discipline today—that even the purest moments of theoretical speculation are the work of a human (...) soul always in touch with its materiality and its subsistence in the world. A soul that only is at all when it is at work in living well, which is to say when the soul enacts itself in praxis. This means: the best understanding of the aporetic conclusion to Metaphysics, Lam is the one that asks us to recall that Aristotle's project of first philosophy—however much its most proper subject matter is the unchanging and immaterial—proceeds as part of a human life lived a certain way, and not as part of an academic discipline. (shrink)

HORKY, P. S. (2013). Plato and Pythagoreanism. Oxford University Press.

This is, indeed, another work on the subject of hate speech regulation in the United States. And yet, it is not just another such work. For my goal here is not to settle the jurisprudential arguments regarding the possibility of any specific hate speech regulation, either extant or yet to be conceived, withstanding a Constitutional test. Nor is it my intention to demonstrate, on the basis of a comparative study of existing legislation, that such regulation either is or is not (...) effective in addressing or redressing the social ills of hatred, discrimination, and inequality. Rather, I will achieve greater analytical clarity about just what the harms of hate speech are. I do so in order to reinvigorate the question about regulation with a new view of what exactly the object needing attention is, by demonstrating that though there are real harms here, the state cannot provide a regulatory remedy . Thus, in my conclusion I will assert that the question of what we might do differently in response to hate speech can only be answered —however provisionally—insofar as we first confront how we need to think differently about it. Specifically, I will argue that we need to replace the emphasis on redressing harms once they have occurred with a new emphasis on addressing, and ultimately eliminating, the conditions which make those harms possible in the first place. (shrink)

This is, indeed, another work on the subject of hate speech regulation in the United States. And yet, it is not just another such work. For my goal here is not to settle the jurisprudential arguments regarding the possibility of any specific hate speech regulation, either extant or yet to be conceived, withstanding a Constitutional test. Nor is it my intention to demonstrate, on the basis of a comparative study of existing legislation, that such regulation either is or is not (...) effective in addressing or redressing the social ills of hatred, discrimination, and inequality. Rather, I will achieve greater analytical clarity about just what the harms of hate speech are. I do so in order to reinvigorate the question about regulation with a new view of what exactly the object needing attention is, by demonstrating that though there are real harms here, the state cannot provide a regulatory remedy. Thus, in my conclusion I will assert that the question of what we might do differently in response to hate speech can only be answered —however provisionally—insofar as we first confront how we need to think differently about it. Specifically, I will argue that we need to replace the emphasis on redressing harms once they have occurred with a new emphasis on addressing, and ultimately eliminating, the conditions which make those harms possible in the first place. (shrink)