Sentences with phrase «subjectivity does»

The fallacy of objectivity is the notion that science is objective in the sense that subjectivity does not enter into the scientific analysis.

What theory of the ontological basis for subjectivity does Whitehead espouse at this point?

Subjectivity does not equate with non-existence.

Now in our experience of our own subjectivity we do not discover anything like the inert brute stuff into which classical physics attempts to analyze nature.

Portions of this subjectivity do not first arise in one part of the region and then get communicated to others.

Not exact matches

But, when you arbitrarily add requirements just to exclude things you don't like, it shows your subjectivity (i.e. a priori beliefs influencing your views).

When this is done, no argument is needed against the real presence of a past figure, for a past figure by definition is not the present subjectivity, is not contemporary, and is precisely one no longer subject to being presented through the senses.7 The presence of a past figure can be made intelligible and justified only by a quite different notion of presence specifically appropriate to the relation of the past to the present.

The second and third meanings inapplicable to historical events in the past have to do with modes of presence in which something other than one's own subjectivity is present to that subjectivity.

Of course we can come up with situations that are exceptions to the rules but I don't see where that has to therefore infer complete subjectivity as to morals.

People of faith and even of non-faith are all living as rented forms within collective formations ever rising and even falling with the tidal flurries regarding the many societal accolades of a changing tides bantered momentums riding ever continuing laments to rise and then fall upon socialisms shorelines to be so aligned with subjectivities of placed regionalized variant findings dispersed yet rationed movements in the ever to so be done fluidic moments by people of faith and also of non-faith.

Thus when modern philosophy established itself anew as a discipline autonomous from theology, it did so naturally by falling back upon an ever more abyssal subjectivity.

What Whitehead conceives as the subjectivity of an «actual entity,» its self - determination, has to do, in Aristotle's doctrine, with his principle of «form.»

Thus the subject itself can not be found outside one's own opinion as such, because a person can never escape from himself; but this does not mean that what interests me in this opinion is the appearance of my own subjectivity.

Theology as a practical discipline does not invite fascination with the subjectivity of the believer, for its primary concern is how the self should be shaped to correspond to the object of religious language.

If the reality at work is the inner creativity of God expressing himself as, among other things, the «low - level universals» of a multiplicity of «I's» or as expressing himself in the supposed subjectivity of psychicalized cells, how exactly does my present self - awareness derive from this?

If e functions as some sort of final cause, Mays does not inform us how; and if it were so to function, we seem to introduce an element of subjectivity and intentionality which Mays would eschew at the level of physical events.

Propositions can only be entertained by individual subjects, and «the world» does not have a subjectivity of its own.

Or put another way, subjectivity «does not mean a matter of arbitrary taste, but a subjectivity which is saturated with God.»

But it doesn't include subjectivity understood as becoming.

The criterion of repetition of common characteristics does not imply that subjectivity should be objectified, but together with the claim that conscious occasions are spacy it implies that individual conscious occasions must be objectified so they can be prehended by successor occasions.

Death does not simply happen once in a lifetime, for this loss of one's own subjectivity is a perpetual occurrence, from moment to moment.

I think that Birch's setting of the problem is essentially correct and that his solution in terms of attributing subjectivity to all entities, even particles, does show a necessary condition for emergence in evolution.

The meeting with God does not rise out of «experience» and therefore out of detached subjectivity, but out of life.

None of this proves that Whitehead did not attribute subjectivity and experience to all events in nature.

He recognized that these disciplines abstract from the full event, including especially its value, but he does not say that they abstract from the interiority or subjectivity of events in nature.

Thus, while we do not know empirically that lower orders of reality have life and subjectivity, there is no reason to draw some arbitrary line absolutely separating living and non-living, or subjects and pure objects.

Whitehead agrees with Metz that apart from subjectivity there can be nothing at all, but he does not agree that apart from human subjectivity there can be nothing at all.

To the measure that he does not, his subjectivity is shallow and addicted to inner conflicts that are now being studied by clinical psychology and psychiatry.

We must be cautious of trying to explain nature by explaining it away, that is, by transforming it into that which it is not (as we do when we represent nature as something universal, or when we make it a condition of subjectivity).

Also machines can get knowledge and exercise the control of technology but they do not have any subjectivity.

While Process and Reality does not assert any divine subjectivity prior to PR V. 2 (and some late insertions), the fourth chapter of Religion in the Making uses language which implies it.

Consequently as regards the fundamental contention we are examining, it is not appropriate, in view of the historical associations that burden the word «material» to subsume under the term «matter» the subjectivity which is also met with within the primordial unity we have described, because to do so would at least obscure the equally fundamental difference encountered in that unity between the knowing subject and the object which is merely met with.

This authority does not limit his freedom, but frees him from the prison of his own subjectivity.

We do so, it is true, in a somewhat paradoxical manner; that which most securely defines us — death — is that which puts an end to us, while the moral gesture which supposedly establishes our subjectivity, and so is inalienable, involves our being drawn beyond our own boundaries.

How does it acquire this subjectivity?

The «relationship» and subjectivity have all been subtle ways to control and manipulate people to do the work of the church.

My central point now is that it is only in light of this theory of Whitehead's own intellectual project that one could do what Lewis has now proposed doing: show its completion or fulfillment in his own theory of God as the subjectivity of the future, a profoundly difficult and complex notion discussed at greater length in other essays by George Allan and Robert C. Neville in this Special Focus.

For example, in order to salvage the «core» of Christian faith for the scientifically informed, Rudolf Bultmann argued that revelation has to do primarily with God's address to the hidden subjectivity and inner freedom of each person.

But unlike either of these hermeneutical perspectives, a «process hermeneutic» does not reduce a text's meaning to «forms of subjectivity,» as Kelsey suggests.

A proposition becomes part of a «form of subjectivity» when the reader admits it as a datum within the process of self - creation by assigning to it a valuative feeling; but that does not mean it is an «injunction.»

In interpretation, the reader entertains propositions whose logical subjects include entities in the reader's (and author's) past world; only as such do they become components of the interpreter's «forms of subjectivity»; so there is always an element of objective reference.

To deny all subjectivity to cats, as Descartes did, is just as counterintuitive as to attribute such subjectivity to objects that have none of these characteristics.

Whereas we experience ourselves as subjects and do not find it difficult to attribute subjectivity to our pets, we are clear that tables and rocks are very different indeed.

Second, saying that God doesn't exist because you think the concept is childish is not logical at all; that's a fallacy of subjectivity.

Because stories now appear to be anchorless, flowing as they do from the caprice of a groundless subjectivity, it is little wonder that they provide us with no solid sustenance in our own search for meaning.

Pailin's critique against divine impersonality is well - taken, but I don't see how it applies to me, once future subjectivity is taken into account.

My second assumption, as noted above, is that the concrescing actual entity does not have to prehend directly this objective integration of the primordial and the consequent natures within the divine being but only to prehend God's feelings toward itself in virtue of that same integration within the divine subjectivity.

While it is easiest to grasp the prius of creativity - esse in the human case, a process metaphysics sees at least a faint glimmer of subjectivity (which for process thinkers does not imply consciousness!)

A collection does not have its own subjectivity and thus can not make its own decisions.

It does mean, however, that while every future finite entity» will prehend and thus «know» that finite entity only as a completed concrescence, God will prehend and thus «know» the concrescence in its subjectivity.