LEADER 03263nam 2200589Ia 450 001 9910807372903321 005 20240416145657.0 010 $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(Au-PeEL)EBL3300096 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10312801 035 $a(OCoLC)923109137 035 $a(DE-B1597)574342 035 $a(DE-B1597)9780674043824 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC3300096 035 $a(OCoLC)1294426277 035 $a(EXLCZ)991000000000786959 100 $a20040526d2004 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aurcn||||||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 10$aLaw's quandary /$fSteven D. Smith 205 $a1st ed. 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 $aRule of law 615 0$aLaw$xPhilosophy. 615 0$aRule of law. 676 $a340.1 700 $aSmith$b Steven D$g(Steven Douglas),$f1952-$01670354 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910807372903321 996 $aLaw's quandary$94096693 997 $aUNINA