Jason Waller

A two-voice debate, this work offers a dispassionate discussion of the nature of judicial activism. Looking at what constitutes an "activist decision" - when a judge rules more in accordance with personal and political convictions than the law - this unique conversation delves into what exactly is judicial activism and why it is illegitimate. The two authors, one conservative and one liberal, seek to determine what is the scope of the legitimate discretion that judges have when deciding cases. After summarizing the controversy surrounding judicial activism, they look at this issue in relation to specific aspects of the law, including the use of moral principles, the purpose of the law, the interpretation of statutes, or the constitutionality of statutes. Each chapter begins with a question followed by non-polemical critiques and alternative answers. Arguments by key thinkers (Dworkin, Scalia) are also introduced and critiqued throughout the work. This balanced, non-technical treatment of a key issue in today's political debate will be an excellent introductory text for anyone studying American politics and political theory.

A two-voice debate, this work offers a dispassionate discussion of the nature of judicial activism. Looking at what constitutes an "activist decision" - when a judge rules more in accordance with personal and political convictions than the law - this unique conversation delves into what exactly is judicial activism and why it is illegitimate. The two authors, one conservative and one liberal, seek to determine what is the scope of the legitimate discretion that judges have when deciding cases. After summarizing the controversy surrounding judicial activism, they look at this issue in relation to specific aspects of the law, including the use of moral principles, the purpose of the law, the interpretation of statutes, or the constitutionality of statutes. Each chapter begins with a question followed by non-polemical critiques and alternative answers. Arguments by key thinkers (Dworkin, Scalia) are also introduced and critiqued throughout the work. This balanced, non-technical treatment of a key issue in today's political debate will be an excellent introductory text for anyone studying American politics and political theory.

If the physical constants, initial conditions, or laws of nature in our universe had been even slightly different, then the evolution of life would have been impossible. This observation has led many philosophers and scientists to ask the natural next question: why is our universe so "fine-tuned" for life? The debates around this question are wide-ranging, multi-disciplinary, complicated, technical, and (at times) heated. This study is a comprehensive investigation of these debates and the many metaphysical and epistemological questions raised by cosmological fine-tuning. Waller’s study reaches two significant and controversial conclusions. First, he concludes that the criticisms directed at the "multiverse hypothesis" by theists and at the "theistic hypothesis" by naturalists are largely unsuccessful. Neither of these options can plausibly be excluded. Choosing between them seems to turn on primitive (and so hard to justify) metaphysical intuitions. Second, in order to break the philosophical deadlock, Waller moves the debate from the level of universes to the level of possible worlds. Arguing that possible worlds are also "fine-tuned" in an important and interesting sense, Waller concludes that the only plausible explanation for the fine-tuning of the actual world is to posit the existence of some kind of "God-like-thing."

If the physical constants, initial conditions, or laws of nature in our universe had been even slightly different, then the evolution of life would have been impossible. This observation has led many philosophers and scientists to ask the natural next question: why is our universe so "fine-tuned" for life? The debates around this question are wide-ranging, multi-disciplinary, complicated, technical, and (at times) heated. This study is a comprehensive investigation of these debates and the many metaphysical and epistemological questions raised by cosmological fine-tuning. Waller’s study reaches two significant and controversial conclusions. First, he concludes that the criticisms directed at the "multiverse hypothesis" by theists and at the "theistic hypothesis" by naturalists are largely unsuccessful. Neither of these options can plausibly be excluded. Choosing between them seems to turn on primitive (and so hard to justify) metaphysical intuitions. Second, in order to break the philosophical deadlock, Waller moves the debate from the level of universes to the level of possible worlds. Arguing that possible worlds are also "fine-tuned" in an important and interesting sense, Waller concludes that the only plausible explanation for the fine-tuning of the actual world is to posit the existence of some kind of "God-like-thing."

Baruch Spinoza is one of the most influential and controversial political philosophers of the early modern period. Though best-known for his contributions to metaphysics, Spinoza’s Theological-Political Treatise (1670) and his unfinished Political Treatise (1677) were widely debated and helped to shape the political writings of philosophers as diverse as Rousseau, Kant, Marx, Nietzsche, and (although he publicly denied it) even Locke. In addition to its enormous historical importance, Spinoza’s political philosophy is also strikingly contemporary in its advocacy of toleration of unpopular religious and political views and his concern with stabilizing religiously diverse democratic societies. The first Guidebook to Spinoza’s political writings, The Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Spinoza on Politics covers the following key points: Spinoza’s life and the background to his philosophythe key themes and arguments of the Theological-Political-Treatise and Political Treatise the continuing importance of Spinoza’s work to philosophy. This book is an ideal starting point for anyone new to Spinoza and essential reading for students of political philosophy and seventeenth-century philosophy.

Baruch Spinoza is one of the most influential and controversial political philosophers of the early modern period. Though best-known for his contributions to metaphysics, Spinoza’s Theological-Political Treatise (1670) and his unfinished Political Treatise (1677) were widely debated and helped to shape the political writings of philosophers as diverse as Rousseau, Kant, Marx, Nietzsche, and (although he publicly denied it) even Locke. In addition to its enormous historical importance, Spinoza’s political philosophy is also strikingly contemporary in its advocacy of toleration of unpopular religious and political views and his concern with stabilizing religiously diverse democratic societies. The first Guidebook to Spinoza’s political writings, The Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Spinoza on Politics covers the following key points: Spinoza’s life and the background to his philosophythe key themes and arguments of the Theological-Political-Treatise and Political Treatise the continuing importance of Spinoza’s work to philosophy. This book is an ideal starting point for anyone new to Spinoza and essential reading for students of political philosophy and seventeenth-century philosophy.

This book concerns the nature of time and ordinary cases of persistence in Spinoza. The author argues for three major interpretive claims. First, that Spinoza is committed to an eternalist theory of time whereby all things (whether they seem to be past, present, or future) are equally real. Second, that a mode’s conatus or essence is a self-maintaining activity (not an inertial force or disposition.) Third, that modes persist through time in Spinoza’s metaphysics by having temporal parts (that is, different parts at different times.) If the author is correct, then a significant reinterpretation of Spinoza’s modal metaphysics is required. The book also puts Spinoza into dialogue with some recent work in analytic metaphysics.