Ludwig von Mises’s Human Action is a seminal work of Austrian economics. It sets forth Mises’s theory of the acting person and lays the groundwork for a liberal economic order. But is the “human action” which Mises describes in Human Action really human action? Mises, as well as his colleague Friedrich von Hayek, posits a liberal society in which telos and metaphysics can be elided from human interactions, but such conceptions of the human person are greatly different from the more robust, and humane, anthropologies of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas. In this paper, I compare and contrast the visions of the human person found in Mises, Hayek, Aristotle, and St. Thomas, arguing that the truly human vision of human action found in the latter two thinkers’ works provides a much sounder basis for human material flourishing (“capitalism”).
This paper is a review of the book: Kōjin Karatani, Isonomia and the Origins of Philosophy, trans. Joseph A. Murphy (Durham, N.C., and London: Duke University Press, 2017). According to the author, Karatani’s book is an attempt to refound the West in a Marxist version of ancient Greek history and philosophy.
This paper is a review of the book: Paul Robinson, The Realist Guide to Religion and Science (Leominster, Herefordshire, UK: Gracewing, 2018). According to the author, Robinson’s book is a double-hearted adventure. On the one hand, Robinson patiently and methodically rebuilds the reader’s capacity for knowing and loving truth by returning to Aristotelian and Thomistic principles and insights, showing how realism is the approach needed for the human mind to look for, know, and delight in what is objectively true. On the other hand, The Realist Guide is a ruthless dismantling of the various false edifices and untenable ideologies that thicket the modern academy.
The writings of Marcus Tullius Cicero are often referred to by natural law theorists. But how do various points of Cicero’s philosophy of law—and of religion, justice, and the state—compare with similar themes from Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas? In this paper, I suggest a Thomistic-Aristotelian reading of Cicero as a way to contextualize and supplement the Roman philosopher’s work with more robust insights from Aristotle and St. Thomas, and especially from Aristotle as interpreted by St. Thomas in the later light of the Incarnation. I also show that Cicero’s natural law philosophy is inconsistent when taken on its own terms. Therefore, Cicero’s natural law philosophy—as well as his philosophy of religion, justice, and the state—should be subjected to a more critical examination by natural law scholars today.
Bruno Latour’s latest book, Down to Earth, argues that the Earth itself must “ground” philosophical modernity and provide a “ground” for thinking about globalism and the problems of the globalist agenda. In this review I find the use of the Earth, and of various other stand-ins for metaphysical principles, to be a kind of “meso-metaphysics,” a metaphysics which denies transcendence but all the same makes use of transcendence and operational otherness when needful for a given ideology, such as the radical environmentalism espoused by Bruno Latour. I see this as ultimately a rejection of both metaphysics and of the possibility of science and philosophy, as the conflation of the physical ground with a philosophical ground dooms meso-metaphysics to incoherence.
This edition of Studia Gilsoniana inaugurates submission of articles on economic science based upon pre-modern principles of philosophy/science. Today, many journals address the intersection of economics and philosophy. Their contributors include practicing economists, economic historians, economist-philosophers, philosopher-economists, and economic methodologists. Research in this interdisciplinary field began to appear in the 1970s and later took shape in the 1980s with the appearance of its specialized academic journals. Today, the intersection of economics and philosophy is a vibrant area of inquiry and research. Books and journal pages are replete with references to classical philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle and their contributions to economic science. However, stronger connections need to be made related to the application of economic principles from the past to the present based upon enduring pre-modern principles of science. This is precisely what this inaugural issue celebrates.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.