Aristotle, Kant, and the Stoics: Rethinking Happiness and Duty

Paperback / softback

Main Details

Title Aristotle, Kant, and the Stoics: Rethinking Happiness and Duty
Authors and Contributors      Edited by Stephen Engstrom
Edited by Jennifer Whiting
Physical Properties
Format:Paperback / softback
Pages:324
Dimensions(mm): Height 228,Width 152
Category/GenreWestern philosophy - Ancient to c 500
Ethics and moral philosophy
ISBN/Barcode 9780521624978
ClassificationsDewey:170 170 170
Audience
Professional & Vocational
Tertiary Education (US: College)
Illustrations Worked examples or Exercises

Publishing Details

Publisher Cambridge University Press
Imprint Cambridge University Press
Publication Date 13 April 1998
Publication Country United Kingdom

Description

This major collection of essays offers the first serious challenge to the traditional view that ancient and modern ethics are fundamentally opposed. In doing so, it has important implications for contemporary ethical thought, as well as providing a significant re-assessment of the work of Aristotle, Kant and the Stoics. The contributors include internationally recognised interpreters of ancient and modern ethics. Four pairs of essays compare and contrast Aristotle and Kant on deliberation and moral development (John McDowell and Barbara Herman), eudaimonism (T. H. Irwin and Stephen Engstrom), self-love and self-worth (Jennifer Whiting and Allen Wood), and practical reason and moral psychology (Julia Annas and Christine Korsgaard). The final pair of essays introduces the Stoics as an example of how the apparently antithetical views of Aristotle and the Stoics might be reconciled (John Cooper and J. B. Schneewind).

Reviews

'Importantly, old stereotypes, or conventional wisdom, about the differences between ancient and modern ethics, especially between Aristotle and Kant, are challenged, exposing possible unities (and historical influences) that tradition has overlooked. However, superficial similarities are also probed and sometimes shown to mask deep remaining differences. The papers call attention to, as well as represent, a quite remarkable contemporary revival of important philosophical/scholarly treatment of the history of ethics, and the authors are, without exception, major players in this movement.' Thomas E. Hill, Jr., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill