Can world peace come about through a world federation of governments? Is growing agreement and appreciation for, throughout the world, the doctrine of equal human rights inevitable? Such questions are raised by Mortimer Adler in How to Think about War and Peace. Adler argues in this book that both are possible, and in doing so he argues that the insights of liberal contract thinkers, particularly Immanuel Kant, are essentially true. Kant argues that each person has the capacity to discover within (...) himself the foundation for human rights because they are self-evident. It follows that over time inequalities and prejudices will disappear, and people will gain the freedom to advance the cause of peace. About this account of the possibility of world peace I ask the question: is it indeed reasonable? For if it is reasonable, it is not reasonable for the reasons that would have been advanced by Aristotle or Plato or their medieval followers. In older political philosophy it is agreement about the unchanging truth of things that can bring peace. To seek the unchanging truth of things, philosophical speculation about God and things divine, is the highest human activity. It is that end to which life in this world is directed, and upon which human flourishing depends. Freedom depends upon our openness to unchanging eternal truth, even more than self-evident rights; the exercise of speculative reasoning allows for political discourse and an open society. (shrink)

This dissertation is about the influence of the philosophy of Plato, and his description of the Idea of the Good, on the political thought of George Parkin Grant. Grant was a Canadian thinker who had an individual and idiosyncratic interpretation of Plato which he used to address the apparently irreconcilable tension that exists in modern philosophy between truths of faith and truths of reason. His attempt to reconcile what he labeled the "ethical-religious" approach to truth with the "cosmological" approach led (...) him to read Plato because Plato's Idea of the Good unified, in his opinion, the spiritual and intellectual sides of our life because it is that for which we are fitted or made. ;Grant argued that there is a fundamental disjunction or fissure in present modern thinking between how we think about God and how we think about truth as a result of the fact that we reason in a technological way for technological ends. Plato and the ancients perceived reason to be, at its highest, contemplative whereas we put our reason to use. Grant following Martin Heidegger, thought that there is an ontological position underlying modern reasoning that draws moderns almost inevitably towards the mastery of nature rather than the contemplation of what is everywhere and always good. ;This dissertation, by tracing some of the intellectual influences on Grant's thought gives an explanation for why Grant considered Martin Heidegger to be right about the ontological underpinnings of technological rationality and at the same time wrong about the continuing importance of Plato's dialogues. In so doing, I argue, he was attempting to give people of Christian faith the beginning of an argument about how to defend faith in a technological society. (shrink)

James Wilson (1742-1798), lawyer, Justice of the first Supreme Court of the United States, and Constitutional Framer argued, as did Étienne Gilson, that a citizenry who have adopted philosophical skepticism will lose their political freedom, as self-rule requires that citizens be able to reason rightly about the natural law. He advocated a common sense philosophical education in natural law for all lawyers, so that they might know the first principles of moral reasoning.