Sentences with phrase «kind of the philosophy of»

I would like to explore the question, «What kind of philosophy of religion is compatible with Whitehead's cosmology?»

Kind of the philosophy of what you don't know can't hurt you.

Not exact matches

So, people who studied business - production systems or kind of old - school business philosophy maybe are familiar with it.

The agency added in its statement that KIND may use the word «healthy» as part of its corporate philosophy, and in a separate letter to the company, potentially on the wrappers of the bars themselves, where it isn't represented as a nutritional content claim.

And that's kind of the way my philosophy evolved, which was if you see — only maybe one or two times a year do you see something that really, really excites you... The mistake I'd say 98 % of money managers and individuals make is they feel like they got to be playing in a bunch of stuff.

And you are far, far too kind to some of these over-educated haters (i.e, Dustin Faeder) who are sore about not making the list because they chose to dick around with a Masters in Philosophy from Tufts.

The philosophy back of this kind of thing may be sincere but its sincerity does not save it from being false.

Process philosophy, and specifically the process account of God, are sometimes defended by various kinds of appeal to experience and to the essence of experience.

Or one might claim that, even though there are different uses of the term «experience», there is still something common to all or many of those uses and that process philosophy and theology are constructed around and from an account of an essence common to many different kinds of experience.

I personally think religion should not be a factor.No one should ask the candidates what their religious views are and they should never mention them.Their religious preferences have absolutely no effect on what type of leader they will be.Unless they are some kind of a religious fanatic.I think it's time for an atheist.There was not a Christian president for over the first 50 years of our nations existence.And, I do not think there has been one since.If you look it up you will find not one of our founding fathers were Christian.Not even Jefferson.I know he wrote the Jefferson bible, but, that's just because he, like the other founding fathers, did not believe Jesus to be of divine decent.So, he kept his philosophy while removing all the mystical and dogmatic concepts.

Once the interface philosophy of America On Line, Mosaic and Pipeline is teamed up with the full access to the net denied on most commercial services and humanizes the nerdland of TCP / IP and other gateway software, the illusion of being plugged - in to some kind of world will be hard to resist.

In particular, there is no space for either analytic philosophy or the traditional kind of literary criticism, practiced by Robert Alter or Harold Fisch, that concentrates on the poetic imagery and the narrative contours of the book.

In fact, Whitehead's doctrine of the causal immanence of the past in the present provides for the kind of mutual «acting on» and «relating» that Leclerc's own reflections on the philosophy of nature lead him to demand (The Nature of Physical Existence, p. 309).

This is expressed in literature, the arts, in existential and positivist philosophy and it is actualized in social and political life of all kinds.

In his book, A New Kind of Christianity, Brian McLaren suggests that our Christianity today, the six line narrative that we hold so dear, is the result of the influences of the Greek philosophy and Romans Empirical thinking and not the narrative of the Bible.

In any event, developed Christian theology rejected nothing good in the metaphysics, ethics, or method of ancient philosophy, but — with a kind of omnivorous glee — assimilated such elements as served its ends, and always improved them in the process.

Not only is the mutable world separated from its divine principle — the One — by intervals of emanation that descend in ever greater alienation from their source, but because the highest truth is the secret identity between the human mind and the One, the labor of philosophy is one of escape: all multiplicity, change, particularity, every feature of the living world, is not only accidental to this formless identity, but a kind of falsehood, and to recover the truth that dwells within, one must detach oneself from what lies without, including the sundry incidentals of one's individual existence; truth is oblivion of the flesh, a pure nothingness, to attain which one must sacrifice the world.

As to all your claims about believing until you believe and then pretending to sort of believe until you kind of believe a little more, I've heard it all before... from various members of various cults, religions, and pop philosophies.

Theological Liberalism is thus a kind of consecration of all the best ethics and science and philosophy regarded as the manifestation or revelation of the will of God to man.»

In his words: «Perhaps the encounter with the transpersonal existence of the Buddhist, the recognition of the serenity and strength it embodies, the experience of Buddhist meditation, and the study of Buddhist philosophy will give us the courage to venture into that kind of radical love which can carry us into a postpersonal form of Christian existence» (Cobb 1975, 220).

' T is of this kind of corpuscular philosophy, that I speak.»

Ironically, since the time Wiebe began his crusade the kind of intellectual agenda that worries him most — calling into question the very canons of objective science — has entered the academic scene not through theologians but through postmodern philosophy and radical forms of cultural criticism.

It's really kind of pathetic that the average atheist on this post is completely incapable of drawing a distinction between Science and philosophy — which includes theology.

If existence is identified with process, which is the questionable move in all «process philosophies,» all existents can only be analyzed in terms of the consequences of this temporal direction as applied to each particular kind of existent.

Now incorporate the eastern philosophies (A huge portion of what Jesus allegedly said came from the Buddha, Confucious and a few others) into this Jesus character... then tie the story back in to the original god (but also ver2.0 of god, same god, but a kinder, gentler vengeful god)-RRB- and voila... the «new» testament.

8We grant that Whitehead's language in this passage, «The two kinds of fluency», is puzzling with respect to the philosophy of time.

One of the difficulties encountered by many young Filipinos who had been trained in Western classical philosophy (which until recently was practically the only kind of philosophical training that was available in the Philippines) was the inadequacy of such a mode of thinking to articulate fully our experience as an Asian people.

7 Cf. PANW 657, where Dewey writes that on such a model philosophy «will not take itself to be a kind of knowledge.»

His whole emphasis on irony and contingency is meant to protect us against what he calls «the dangers of over-philosophication,» the temptation to think of philosophy as providing anything more than a kind of therapeutic stance.

I'm atheist, but the philosophy this man ascribes to is a rare kind of beautiful Christianity.

I refer to new ideas in physics, chemistry, physiology, philosophy, theology, all of which are pertinent to the religious significance of Darwinism.3 What many seem not to understand is that the crux of the religious issue is not between fundamentalism — which I recall no one whose intelligence I greatly admire defending — and evolution, but between two kinds of theism and two kinds of evolutionism.

To the extent that his philosophy is expressed through a kind of preaching, the moral stature of the man can not be ignored.

This experience is expressed in the arts and in literature, conceptualized in existential philosophy, actualized in political cleavages of all kinds, and analyzed in the psychology of the unconscious....

This kind of indebtedness applies especially to Susanne Langer, Philosophy in a New Key, and Heinrich Zimmer, Philosophies of India, on which I have leaned heavily for portions of Chapters Three and Six respectively.

In conclusion, it should be made clear that the kind of existence ideally embodied in him is reflected also in most of the Greek and Roman philosophy that followed him and looked back to him with special reverence.

Theology seemed to me essentially a more specialized kind of religious philosophy.

It is logic, not process philosophy, which insists that one can not both describe Jesus as a man and also say that God's indwelling in him differs in kind from his indwelling in other men: since a study of the raw material confirms the first statement, logic demands a modification of the second.

And the kind of philosophy that was coming to prominence — logical positivism and then ordinary language analysis — was bound to seem less engaging to one with Lewis's long - standing metaphysical interests.

In any case, philosophy has not of late aspired to the kind of grand and profound wisdom that Kass is seeking.

Such a concession could be exploited by promoters of rival sources of knowledge, such as philosophy and religion, who would be quick to point out that faith in naturalism is no more «scientific» (i.e., empirically based) than any other kind of faith.

It was the age of Confucius in China, of the Buddha in India, and of Mahavira, founder of Jainism, the period also when the principal Hindu Upanishads were written, of Lao - tzu and the flourishing of Taoism in China, of the prophet Zoroaster in the Middle East, of the great transformative prophets Ezekiel, Jeremiah and second - Isaiah in Israel, and finally this was the period of the birth of philosophy and science and what we call Western culture in Greece, all these developments at the same time arising independently in different cultures for reasons not yet fully understood — a kind of quickening of human consciousness all over the globe.

If, as I suggested in the last section, the obvious and oft - noted differences between Russell and Whitehead symbolize the current analytic - speculative split, then the kinds of similarities and (perhaps even more importantly) the areas of mutual influence, indebtedness, and philosophic enrichment to which Professor Kuntz rightly points can suggest to contemporary philosophers a neutral «dialogical territory» beyond the present, hostile philosophic «demilitarized zone,» which is no longer itself viable, interesting, or worthy of the vocation of philosophy.

Then I shall attempt to say — and this is the principal point of my paper — what kind of discourse on freedom philosophy can articulate, beyond psychological and political discourse, that will still merit the name of «discourse» on religious freedom.

There's a second kind of French envy that's much less common: It is found among certain very admirable American traditionalist Catholics, many of whom are shaped in some measure by the «after virtue» philosophy of Alasdair MacIntyre.

But Teilhard was not a professional philosopher; the kind of philosophy implicit in his thought would have to be based on his work, not on what he said it was.

It was only intended to show that certain concepts of the scholastic philosophy of nature, such as eductio a potentia materiae, if they are thought out without prejudice, compel us to think on lines which are perhaps of a kind to throw light on the real problem that concerns us here.

Collapsing the distinction between the two leads to a stale materialism, while preserving a radical seperation leads to the kind of epistemological despair that permeates bad pomo philosophy of science and the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Consequently Thomistic philosophy at least has always regarded what is material simply as a kind of «limited» being.

Nor does the fact that these analyses, as he develops them, are not adequately distinguished from formulations that he takes to be analogical, but that I can accept only as symbolic, in any way interfere with my appreciating both kinds of formulations as having their proper places in any adequate philosophy.

Traditions of every kind, hoarded and manifested in gesture and language, in schools, libraries, museums, bodies of law and religion, philosophy and science — everything that accumulates, arranges itself, recurs and adds to itself, becoming the collective memory of the human race — all this we may see as no more than an outer garment, an epiphenomenon precariously superimposed upon all the other edifices of Nature (the only truly organic ones, as it may appear): but it is precisely this optical illusion which we have to overcome if our realism is to reach to the heart of the matter.