Patrick Zoll

In this essay, I explain in detail why Aquinas’s hylomorphism is compatible with survivalism and incompatible with corruptionism. Corruptionists do not sufficiently pay attention to the role that form plays in Aquinas’s hylomorphism and do not take into account some important implications of his doctrine of the unicity of substantial form. In Aquinas’s view, the dead do not cease to exist because neither any of their essential principles nor their substantial being (esse) are annihilated at death. This is not the case because both are in fact given to the whole human being by the soul and not by the prime matter the soul configures, or by any additional form.

Ein rortyanischer Pragmatismus sieht sich im Kontext der Debatte um „postfaktische Politik“ mit dem Vorwurf konfrontiert, dass er mit seiner Kritik an Wahrheit und Objektivität für deren Entstehung und Erfolg mitverantwortlich ist. Nach einer Klärung der Bedeutung des Begriffs „postfaktische Politik“ werde ich darlegen wie eine rortyanische Pragmatistin diesen Vorwurf in seiner einfachen und raffinierten Variante entkräften kann. Hierbei erörtere ich die Unterschiede zwischen einer subjektivistischen und einer objektivistischen Verteidigungsstrategie und argumentiere dafür, dass die letztgenannte erfolgsversprechender ist. Abschließend skizziere ich, wie eine Rezeption von Rortys Denken konstruktiv etwas zur Lösung der Probleme beitragen kann, die unter dem Stichwort „postfaktische Politik“ diskutiert werden.

There is a constant dissent between exclusivist public reason liberals and their inclusivist religious critics concerning the question whether religious arguments can figure into the public justification of state action. Firstly, I claim that the stability of this dissent is best explained as a conflict between an exclusivist third-personal account of public justification which demands restraint, and an inclusivist first-personal account which rejects restraint. Secondly, I argue that both conceptions are deficient because they cannot accommodate the valid intuitions of their opponents. They either imply a violation of the integrity of religious citizens or they give room for cases where a religious majority can impose a political norm on a minority without having given this minority a reason to comply with the norm. Finally, I defend an inclusivist model of public reason liberalism which relies on a second-personal conception of public justification. I claim that this model breaks the impasse in favor of inclusivism because religious arguments can play a role in public justification, but they can never justify state action on their own in a plural society. Thus, the problematic cases that motivate exclusivism are excluded without having introduced a principle of restraint which violates the religious integrity of citizens.

This volume brings together diverse sets of standpoints on liberalism in an era of growing skepticism and distrust regarding liberal institutions. The essays in the volume: - Relate concerns for liberal institutions with classical themes in perfectionist politics, such as the priority of the common good in decision-making or the role of comprehensive doctrines. - Analyse how perfectionist intuitions about the political life affect our concepts of public reason or public justification. - Outline various moral duties we have toward other persons that underlie the liberal institutions or notions of rights functioning across the contemporary political landscape. - Explore various aspects of pluralism from within influential religious or philosophical traditions, applying insights from those traditions to issues in contemporary politics. The comprehensive volume will be of great interest to scholars, students, and researchers of politics, especially those in political philosophy and political theory.

One important task of metaphysics is to answer the question of what it is for an object to exist. The first part of this book offers a systematic reconstruction and critique of contemporary views on existence. The upshot of this part is that the contemporary debate has reached an impasse because none of the considered views is able to formulate a satisfactory answer to this fundamental metaphysical question. The second part reconstructs Thomas Aquinas’s view on existence (esse) and argues that it contributes a new perspective which allows us to see why the contemporary debate has reached this impasse. It has come to this point because it has taken a premise for granted which Aquinas’s view rejects, namely, that the existence of an object consists in something’s having a property. A decisive contribution of Aquinas’s theory of esse is that it makes use of the ideas of metaphysical participation and composition. In this way, it can be explained how an object can have esse without being the case that esse is a property of it. This book brings together a reconstruction from the history of philosophy with a systematic study on existence and is therefore relevant for scholars interested in contemporary or medieval theories of existence.