Sentences with phrase «among philosophers of»

There are problems with Popperâ $ ™ s theory and it is fair to say that he has long been unfashionable among philosophers of science.

A broad stream of opinion among philosophers of science holds that coherence of explanations or theories is a necessary or at least a «conducive» criterion for truth.

[2] Despite this influence and importance, until recently Greenberg has been little discussed among philosophers of art.

The received view among philosophers of science, whether they be of a regularity or necessity persuasion, is that a statement s is a law statement or nomological generalization if and only if it satisfies the following logically necessary specifications:

I have suggested, however, that science is not as objective, nor religion as subjective, as the view dominant among philosophers of religion has held.

Certainly among philosophers of this century Alfred North Whitehead has been a seminal thinker for one increasingly influential group in the theological world.

Among philosophers of science the «idealists» emphasize the role of man's mind and the structure of ideas, while the «realists» emphasize the objective structure of the physical world.

Not exact matches

Rand, however, has long been a popular philosopher among the C - suite crowd — from Lululemon founder Chip Wilson to John Mackey, CEO of another touchy - feely - earthy company, Whole Foods, to Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban.

His work is not necessarily the best moral philosophy now being written — Iris Murdoch, for one, may offer a rival philosophy he would find difficult to answer — but his analysis of our moral paradox is so acute that he, perhaps uniquely among contemporary philosophers, offers the possibility of its solution.

Historians who favor one perspective over others a priori must nevertheless clarify the contrasts among all of them, so that other historians, and philosophers, can offer amendment or amplification within an overall critical framework.

This theological perspective has a profound implications for the correction of the scientific epistemology, which tends to regard as the objective and objectifying process, although nowadays there are efforts to correct this situation among the scientists and philosophers of science.

The first is relatively uncontroversial to most believers except, perhaps, to evangelical philosophers and fundamentalists of various types — namely, that laypeople are in no position to adjudicate disputes among experts in New Testament scholarship because the scholars have an expertise in languages and ancient history that laypeople lack.

Now he reviews a new book on ethics and writes,» [The author] agrees with what now seems to be a near - consensus among philosophers that «speciesism» - the view that we are entitled to take theinterests of animals less seriously than we take human interests, simply because humans are members of our species - is not a morally defensible position.»

Where there are apparent contradictions among philosophers, the goal must be to attain a wider vision within which the essential truth of each view can be displayed in its limited validity.9

As Whitehead's thought became better understood among academic theologians and philosophers, it attracted a small but staunch group of followers who found his explanation of God to be both intellectually satisfying and religiously credible.

The brilliant lay philosopher of Judaism, Dennis Prager, has written lucidly about the utter distinctiveness of Judaism among the nations of its time in its understanding of human sexuality.

His commentary on the Physics of Aristotle alone, In Aristotelis Physicorum, would have assured his place among the greats of Christian philosophers.

In his introduction, Oden throws down a «gauntlet»: He challenges the reader to assemble a collection of passages from any ten major philosophers as funny as those he has compiled from Kierkegaard's writings; furthermore, he makes bold provisionally — until this challenge is met — to declare Kierkegaard «as, among philosophers, the most amusing.»

I might just qualify my judgment by saying that Kierkegaard remains perhaps the greatest human humorist among philosophers, since I suspect that — at least at some spiritual level — Hamann was actually the miscegenate offspring of a satyr and an angel.

But perhaps it is important to note that another environmental philosopher, Mary Ann Warren, believes silence of this sort betrays an as yet unanswered question among environmental philosophers.

In the humanities, among sociologists, psychologists, philosophers and political theorists, the relational character of human beings, their dependence on their interactions with their environment, is simply assumed.

Recently many environmental philosophers in the West have come to agree.6 One of the most influential among them is J. Baird Callicott, professor of philosophy and natural resources at the University of Wisconsin, author of numerous influential works on environmental ethics and foremost interpreter of the pioneer of Western environmental philosophy, Aldo Leopold.

Among philosophers, beginning with Heraclites of Ephesus (550 - 480 B.C.E.), right through Hegel and Nietzsche in our era, logos has meant «the essential abiding law of the world, thought and custom.»

He was among the first to coin the phrase «land ethic,» and to this day his understanding of the phrase's content serves as a resource for environmental philosophers.3

Indeed, the overwhelming consensus among mathematicians who work with transfinites is that transfinite mathematics entails no ontological commitment.4 In fact, when Platonic realism or Russellian logicism (which holds to the extra-mental reality of infinite sets) are employed as interpretations of infinite sets, we open the door to the very antinomies and problematics, such as the Burali - Forti antinomy and Russell's difficulty with sets and impredicative definitions, which have led mathematicians and philosophers of mathematics to new interpretations of set theory such as the axiomatic.

In explicating his own notion of «dynamism» Sullivan notes that, «Whitehead, among the philosophers, has conceived the universe as an organism, and certainly there is no difficulty in seeing living organisms as particular dynamisms.»

There the problematic is shaped a by a history of discussion mostly among philosophers.

Part of what is implied here is the importance of tradition as opposed to detached rationality — a theme that philosophers Hans - Georg Gadamer and Alasdair MacIntyre, among others, have asserted with particular force.

The interesting thing that a lot of folks forget is that Marx emerged among of variety of 19th century philosophers and political theorists in Western Europe called «socialists» and was certainly not the first.

Whitehead's understanding (or, as I shall argue, misunderstanding) of Aristotle's concept of «substance» has continued to flourish, entrenched and unquestioned, among subsequent Whiteheadian philosophers.

This misconception, which has ever since flourished unquestioned among Whiteheadian philosophers, proved a powerful factor, I think, in Whitehead's ultimate adoption of an atomic or epochal theory of becoming.

Karl Popper, second to none among living (now, 1996, no longer) philosophers of science, defends indeterminism, as do Dirac and Wheeler, among the more creative of living scientists, including some biologists.

Philosophy's recognition of itself as religion is neither achieved nor admitted by all philosophers, but among these who have recognized the identity of philosophy and religion are Socrates, Plotinus, Erigena, Spinoza, Hegel — in short, and in general, most of the speculative, «Platonic» tradition, in opposition to the mainstream of the analytic, «Aristotalian» tradition (if the reader will forgive such a gross oversimplification of a very complex history of thought).

Certainly one of the reasons for the neglect of both thinkers among English language philosophers has been that they have not played the role which Russell and Wittgenstein did in generating so - called analytical philosophy (a philosophical style inimical, upon the whole, to attempts to theorize about the nature of the universe in general.

The «God of the philosophers,» in consequence, is a conceptually comprehensible thing among things, and no longer a living God who can be the object of imagination, wishes, and feelings.

This balkanization of meaning continues as a professional habit of philosophers, and not only among those who dismiss the self.

Among them will be the Orthodox theologian John Zizioulas on «An Ontology of Love: A Patristic Reading of Dietrich von Hildebrand's The Nature of Love»; philosopher Josef Seifert on «Dietrich von Hildebrand on Benevolence in Love and Friendship»; and literary scholar Brian Sudlow (author of Catholic Literature and Secularization in France and England 1880 - 1914) on «The Non-Violence of Love: A Hildebrand - Girard Encounter.»

In general, American process theology is consciously dependent upon the process philosophy of either Whitehead or Hartshorne or both; and Hartshorne deserves a large amount of credit for doggedly advocating Whiteheadian - Hartshornian process philosophy during the past four decades when such advocacy was not popular among either philosophers or theologians.

Nevertheless, it was among the scientist - philosophers of Greece that reason was carried to the highest pitch of development and that the activity of reason came to be prized most highly for its own sake.

Among present philosophers, apparently Feigl (1967) is a prominent representative of those identists who deduce their conception from the experienced psychic phenomena.

Along with Paul Weiss, he should probably be regarded as preeminent among living American philosophers who still pursue their work in the grand style of systematic metaphysical description and construction.

A view held by many contemporary metaphysicians is that the problem of induction, so much discussed by philosophers of science, arises only because of mistaken metaphysical views; in particular views (deriving from Hume) about the nature of the causal relation and / or about the internal relations among different entities.1 Contrary to this view, I will try...

The study draws a number of important conclusions on the basis of careful analysis both of the research data and on the basis of the understanding of human nature that was unanimous until recently among Catholic philosophers.

It has generated much discussion among philosophers on the lack of «haecceitas» of elementary particles.

Among the pile of Pascal's papers that were to be the «Pensees» was a proposition that has kept philosophers and theologians occupied for the last 350 years, Pascal's wager: betting on God is the prudent option.

His tour culminates in a description of the modern resurgence of Christian philosophy among today's most eminent philosophers engaging with the New Atheists.

By 1980, however, the somewhat chastened magazine acknowledged he was not: «God is making a comeback Most intriguingly, this is happening not among theologians or ordinary believers — most of whom never accepted for a moment that he was in any serious trouble — but in the crisp, intellectual circles of academic philosophers, where the consensus had long banished the Almighty from fruitful discourse.»

Among widely influential philosophers today I can think of only two who are self - professed practicing Christians: Charles Taylor and Alasdair Maclntyre, both Roman Catholics.

Rawls» 1971 book, A Theory of Justice, is justly called the most influential work in political philosophy of the last century, at least among academic philosophers.

Both «symbolic reference» and «propositional feelings» have receptive and imaginative aspects; but, whereas Whitehead emphasized the former, cognitive aspect in his discussion of «symbolic reference,» as a rebuttal to Hume and Kant, he emphasized the latter, creative aspect in his discussion of «propositions,» an emphasis needed to counter «the interest in logic, dominating over-intellectualized philosophers,» among whom «aesthetic delight» is eclipsed by «judgment» (cf. PR 184 - 86 and WH 33) In «symbolic reference» a dim, but indirect, mode of perception («causal efficacy») is combined with a clear, but indirect, mode of perception («presentational immediacy»), which produces a sense of the external world.