001478727 000__ 04203nam\a22008295i\4500 001478727 001__ 1478727 001478727 003__ DE-B1597 001478727 005__ 20231026034953.0 001478727 006__ m\\\\\o\\d\\\\\\\\ 001478727 007__ cr\un\nnnunnun 001478727 008__ 220524t20222004mau\\\\\o\\d\z\\\\\\eng\d 001478727 020__ $$a9780674043824 001478727 0247_ $$a10.4159/9780674043824$$2doi 001478727 035__ $$a(DE-B1597)574342 001478727 035__ $$a(OCoLC)1294426277 001478727 040__ $$aDE-B1597$$beng$$cDE-B1597$$erda 001478727 0410_ $$aeng 001478727 044__ $$amau$$cUS-MA 001478727 050_4 $$aK230.S627 ǂb L39 2004eb 001478727 072_7 $$aLAW052000$$2bisacsh 001478727 08204 $$a340.1 001478727 1001_ $$aSmith, Steven D, $$eauthor.$$4aut$$4http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/aut 001478727 24510 $$aLaw's Quandary /$$cSteven D Smith. 001478727 264_1 $$aCambridge, MA : $$bHarvard University Press, $$c[2022] 001478727 264_4 $$c©2004 001478727 300__ $$a1 online resource (222 p.) 001478727 336__ $$atext$$btxt$$2rdacontent 001478727 337__ $$acomputer$$bc$$2rdamedia 001478727 338__ $$aonline resource$$bcr$$2rdacarrier 001478727 347__ $$atext file$$bPDF$$2rda 001478727 506__ $$aAccess limited to authorized users. 001478727 520__ $$aThis lively book reassesses a century of jurisprudential thought from a fresh perspective, and points to a malaise that currently afflicts not only legal theory but law in general. Steven Smith argues that our legal vocabulary and methods of reasoning presuppose classical ontological commitments that were explicitly articulated by thinkers from Aquinas to Coke to Blackstone, and even by Joseph Story. But these commitments are out of sync with the world view that prevails today in academic and professional thinking. So our law-talk thus degenerates into "just words"--or a kind of nonsense. The diagnosis is similar to that offered by Holmes, the Legal Realists, and other critics over the past century, except that these critics assumed that the older ontological commitments were dead, or at least on their way to extinction; so their aim was to purge legal discourse of what they saw as an archaic and fading metaphysics. Smith's argument starts with essentially the same metaphysical predicament but moves in the opposite direction. Instead of avoiding or marginalizing the "ultimate questions," he argues that we need to face up to them and consider their implications for law. 001478727 538__ $$aMode of access: Internet via World Wide Web. 001478727 546__ $$aIn English. 001478727 5880_ $$aDescription based on online resource; title from PDF title page (publisher's Web site, viewed 24. Mai 2022) 001478727 650_7 $$aLAW / Jurisprudence.$$2bisacsh 001478727 655_0 $$aElectronic books 001478727 77308 $$iTitle is part of eBook package:$$dDe Gruyter$$tHUP eBook-Package Backlist 2000-2013 (Canada)$$z9783110756067 001478727 77308 $$iTitle is part of eBook package:$$dDe Gruyter$$tHarvard University Press eBook Package Backlist 2000-2013$$z9783110442205 001478727 852__ $$bebk 001478727 85640 $$3De Gruyter$$uhttps://univsouthin.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.degruyter.com/isbn/9780674043824$$zOnline Access 001478727 909CO $$ooai:library.usi.edu:1478727$$pGLOBAL_SET 001478727 912__ $$a978-3-11-044220-5 Harvard University Press eBook Package Backlist 2000-2013$$c2000$$d2013 001478727 912__ $$a978-3-11-075606-7 HUP eBook-Package Backlist 2000-2013 (Canada)$$b2013 001478727 912__ $$aEBA_BACKALL 001478727 912__ $$aEBA_CL_LAEC 001478727 912__ $$aEBA_EBACKALL 001478727 912__ $$aEBA_EBKALL 001478727 912__ $$aEBA_ECL_LAEC 001478727 912__ $$aEBA_EEBKALL 001478727 912__ $$aEBA_ESSHALL 001478727 912__ $$aEBA_ESTMALL 001478727 912__ $$aEBA_PPALL 001478727 912__ $$aEBA_SSHALL 001478727 912__ $$aEBA_STMALL 001478727 912__ $$aGBV-deGruyter-alles 001478727 912__ $$aPDA11SSHE 001478727 912__ $$aPDA12STME 001478727 912__ $$aPDA13ENGE 001478727 912__ $$aPDA17SSHEE 001478727 912__ $$aPDA18STMEE 001478727 912__ $$aPDA5EBK 001478727 980__ $$aBIB 001478727 980__ $$aEBOOK 001478727 982__ $$aEbook 001478727 983__ $$aOnline