LEADER 03265nam  2200577Ia 450 
001 9910455108603321
005 20200520144314.0
010   $a0-674-04382-0
024 7 $a10.4159/9780674043824
035   $a(CKB)1000000000786959
035   $a(SSID)ssj0000189980
035   $a(PQKBManifestationID)11189202
035   $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000189980
035   $a(PQKBWorkID)10166301
035   $a(PQKB)10705975
035   $a(MiAaPQ)EBC3300096
035   $a(Au-PeEL)EBL3300096
035   $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10312801
035   $a(OCoLC)923109137
035   $a(DE-B1597)574342
035   $a(DE-B1597)9780674043824
035   $a(EXLCZ)991000000000786959
100   $a20040526d2004      uy             0
101 0 $aeng
135   $aurcn|||||||||
181   $ctxt
182   $cc
183   $acr
200 10$aLaw's quandary$b[electronic resource] /$fSteven D. Smith
210   $aCambridge, Mass. $cHarvard University Press$d2004
215   $axiv, 206 p
300   $aBibliographic Level Mode of Issuance: Monograph
311   $a0-674-01533-9 
311   $a0-674-02573-3 
320   $aIncludes bibliographical references (p. 181-202) and index.
327   $tFrontmatter -- $tContents -- $tPreface -- $tPart I. Law and Metaphysics? -- $t1. Just Words ? -- $t2. Ontological Dynasties -- $tPart II. (How) Is Law for Real? -- $t3. Does ?the Law? Exist? -- $t4. The Jurisprudence of Modernity -- $tPart III. The Metaphysics of Legal Meaning -- $t5. How Does Law Mean? -- $t6. Author(s)Wanted -- $tPart IV. Mind the Gap -- $t7. Law in a Quandary -- $tEpilogue: Confusion and Confession -- $tNotes -- $tIndex
330   $aThis lively book reassesses a century of jurisprudential thought from a fresh perspective, and points to a malaise that currently afflicts not only legal theory but law in general. Steven Smith argues that our legal vocabulary and methods of reasoning presuppose classical ontological commitments that were explicitly articulated by thinkers from Aquinas to Coke to Blackstone, and even by Joseph Story. But these commitments are out of sync with the world view that prevails today in academic and professional thinking. So our law-talk thus degenerates into "just words"--or a kind of nonsense. The diagnosis is similar to that offered by Holmes, the Legal Realists, and other critics over the past century, except that these critics assumed that the older ontological commitments were dead, or at least on their way to extinction; so their aim was to purge legal discourse of what they saw as an archaic and fading metaphysics. Smith's argument starts with essentially the same metaphysical predicament but moves in the opposite direction. Instead of avoiding or marginalizing the "ultimate questions," he argues that we need to face up to them and consider their implications for law.
606   $aLaw$xPhilosophy
606   $aRule of law
608   $aElectronic books.
615  0$aLaw$xPhilosophy.
615  0$aRule of law.
676   $a340.1
700   $aSmith$b Steven D$g(Steven Douglas),$f1952-$0915732
801  0$bMiAaPQ
801  1$bMiAaPQ
801  2$bMiAaPQ
906   $aBOOK
912   $a9910455108603321
996   $aLaw's quandary$92052877
997   $aUNINA