Suchergebnisse

"We take carbon for granted so much that we rarely consider how carbon's amazing properties lead to its ubiquity in the energy and fabric of life and human civilization. And yet we are now trying to decarbonize. This book gives an overview and analysis of some of the most pressing challenges and considerations in the area of decarbonization of economies. It does so from the perspective of chemistry and biology, and comes to the conclusion that we are likely to do more environmental damage by breaking free from carbon than if we embrace the impressive capacity that carbon-based energy-carriers and materials have for creating circular economies with zero net CO2 emissions. Biology has done this sustainably for 3.5 billion years, and we must learn from that enormous lesson"--

Shakespeare between Machiavelli and Hobbes explores Shakespeare's political outlook by comparing some of the playwright's best-known works to the works of Italian political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli and English social contract theorist Thomas Hobbes. This ultimately reveals the materialist principles that underpin Shakespeare's imaginary states.

The themes of God, Mind and Knowledge are central to the philosophy of religion but they are now being taken up by professional philosophers who have not previously contributed to the field. This book is a collection of original essays by eminent and rising philosophers and it explores the boundaries between philosophy of religion, philosophy of mind, metaphysics, and epistemology.

In Measure for Measure Shakespeare addresses a question that is both straightforward and hard to answer: how do we make people obey the law? Over the course of the play, this simple question gives way to a complex set of problems about human will, political legitimacy, and the origins of sovereign power. Measure for Measure is concerned with illicit activity and ineffective government. But in this comedy—this "problem play"—Shakespeare is especially interested in the political mechanism by which authority and obedience are restored. How is a delinquent population, used to license, brought under control? Shakespeare examines one strategy in this play, one he has seemingly adapted from the Florentine political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli. Multiple critics have recognized that the story of Duke Vincentio and his deviant deputy, Lord Angelo, bear a striking resemblance to the story Machiavelli tells about Cesare Borgia and Remirro de Orco in Chapter 7 of The Prince. Here, I build upon these analyses to offer a new account of Shakespeare's relationship to Machiavelli and political realism more generally. The Cesare story provides Shakespeare with an opportunity to explore how spectacle and theatricality can be used—not only to subdue an unruly population but to legitimate sovereign authority. However, Shakespeare delves deeper than Machiavelli into the mechanism whereby political authority is reestablished, first by considering the psychological conditions of the Duke's subjects (both before and during his spectacular display of power), and second, by emphasizing the need for individual citizens to will sovereign authority into being. As we will see, in Shakespeare's Vienna, order can only be restored once the delinquent people beg to be governed.

In large part Australian interwar fascism has been studied in isolation. The present article compares and contrasts the New Guard with kindred movements in Europe during the 1930s. Using the conceptual model of "generic fascism" developed by Roger Griffin, its principal concern is to explain why, in the "era of fascism", with many factors encouraging the growth of authoritarian movements to replace parliamentary democracy, the New Guard proved to be so manifestly unsuccessful.

It is not widely remembered that on 10 June 1955 two men, Raymond Edward Fitzpatrick and Frank Courtenay Browne, were sentenced to gaol for three months on a vote of the Commonwealth House of Representatives for contempt of parliament. Two parliamentary officials, Frank Green and Harry Evans, have dominated scholarly attempts to explain this unusual event. To the former, the privilege case largely reflected the animus of Prime Minister Menzies towards Browne and his desire for revenge. To the latter the matter was a genuine case of contempt. This article revisits the 1955 Bankstown Observer privilege case with the benefit of recently released archival material. It seeks to understand why two citizens were deprived of their liberty without legal representation or redress and to find some compromise between the divergent interpretations proffered by Green and Evans.