Sentences with phrase «as most philosophers»

With regard to justice, I can only agree that the vision of subjective immortality is absurd or selfish if in fact all persons are as privileged as most philosophers and theologians.

How will you grasp what Gadamer is saying if you are resolutely unprepared (as most philosophers are) to acknowledge the ontological mystery of a Being that speaks directly to us» that is, to our troubles, our innermost issues of identity and value?

Not exact matches

However, beyond what many of us were exposed to in high school, and as most are generally familiar, Physics actually branches out expansively, into numerous realms, many of which philosophers have played around with for ages.

He is surely correct in this, and his identification of Wilhelm Reich as the key ideologue is important, as is his use of Augusto Del Noce, perhaps the most important modern philosopher whom Protestants have never heard of.

And, not coincidentally, most enlightened philosophers have ultimately come to similar conclusions, for the good of society and mankind, as well as the individual.

The Canadian thinker Charles Taylor, in any case, is gaining status as the world's premier philosopher of modernity, the most judicious, the one who makes the most apt and discerning distinctions, the one who best sees both modernity's grandeur and its misery.

Clearly the best collection of essays from a Kentucky farmer - philosopher, this book demonstrates the breadth of Wendell Berry's work, as well as his status as one of the most important commentators of our time on matters of community, land and ecology.

Throughout most of recorded history, theologians and philosophers have extolled propriety and correct social behavior as virtues akin to morality.

In the preface to Creative Synthesis and Philosophic Method, Hartshorne celebrates «our English inheritance of critical caution and concern for clarity»; he seeks to learn more from Leibniz, «the most lucid metaphysician in the early modern period,» as well as from Bergson, Peirce, James, Dewey, and Whitehead, «five philosophers of process of great genius and immense knowledge of the intellectual and spiritual resources of this century.

The book of Job has served as a philosophical Rorschach blot for its most outspoken interpreters, from the Talmudic rabbis and Church Fathers through their medieval philosophical successors and down to modern philosophers, theologians, and creative writers.

And what of Nietzsche, the philosopher who, with the exception of Plato and Rousseau, most influenced Bloom as teacher and thinker?

The philosopher who did most to shape this vision of the world, Rene Descartes, regarded the human mind as wholly different in nature.

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.»

The rejection of metaphysics by most modern philosophers and theologians has seen the gap filled by influential scientists, often with little philosophical training but with the credibility that their status as scientists confers on them.

One of the creative process philosophers, Charles Hartshorne, states in the beginning of Man's Vision of God his conviction that «a magnificent intellectual content — far surpassing that of such systems as Thomism, Spinozism, German idealism, positivism (old or new) is implicit in the religious faith most briefly expressed in the three words, God is love».1 If this be true what is needed is not the discarding of metaphysics but the exploration of this new possibility in the doctrine of God's being.

Unlike most contemporary philosophers, who restrict their examination of induction to the modern sense of the term, in which it is construed as a method of inference which permits some prediction of future events on the basis of past events, Whitehead also recognizes the importance of the ancient meaning of induction.

John Warwick Montgomery, a lawyer and philosopher as well as theologian, provides perhaps the most comprehensive argument by a conservative in his recent book Human Rights and Human Dignity: An Apologetic for the Transcendent Perspective (Zondervan, 1986) He concludes that rights derived from the inerrant teachings of the Bible give authority to the rights set forth in the Universal Declaration, even exceeding its claims in significant ways.

In his review article of Hartshorne's Creative Synthesis and Philosophic Method (PS 2:49 - 67), Robert Neville remarks that «one of Hartshorne's most important contributions» has been his concern to deal «with problems as formulated by public discussion, usually that of analytical philosophers.»

Dewey, who died in 1952 after reigning for more than fifty years as America's most influential public philosopher and educator, appreciated that the churches had not gone out of business, and that they could even be useful in promoting peace, fighting economic injustice, and, more generally, in «stimulating action» for what he called «a divine kingdom on earth.»

I would add, following the example of the best American Catholic «public philosophers» John Courtney Murray and Orestes Brownson, that we should, as loyal Americans [we Porchers and REM fans are all about standing for the place where we live], actually explain why our Fathers built better than they knew — which means criticizing their thinking and affirming [most of] their practice with a theory that at least wasn't completely their own.

First, as I note at Public Discourse today in» Kermit Gosnell and the Logic of «Pro-Choice,»» the most up - to - the - minute philosophers in bioethics are dispensing with any «sharp distinction,» as Jon puts it, between the unborn child and the one who has been born.

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).

I ask you now not to forget this notion; for although most philosophers seem either to forget it or to disdain it too much ever to mention it, I believe that we shall have to admit it ourselves in the end as containing an element of truth.

The most influential thinkers might be philosopher - psychologists such as William James or social - historians such as Shirley Jackson Case.

But this would be most marked for those philosophers of physics who tend to reduce all to a posited low - level common denominator such as bosons, or atoms or (in Richard Dawkins case) genes.

Working with Colin McGinn's ideas on consciousness Charlton illustrates the inconsistencies of philosophers who view mind as explainable by science, while suggesting himself that «the presence of mind in nature is not something invisible and hidden except to introspection, but the most palpable thing there is.

Now for Hegel, as for most of the philosophers of the tradition, the end of philosophical speculation is the attainment of truth (usually taken in some absolutist sense), and we reach such truth through the proper employment of reason.

If I am right, Whitehead does not divorce his role as educator from that of philosopher, even in his most austere later treatments of the problems he has helped formulate for the University of London special M. Sc.

Leon Kass's Jefferson lecture, as I said before, needs to be read with the lectures of two of his predecessors - the philosopher of manliness Harvey Mansfield and the novelist of manliness Tom Wolfe - as a most instructive way of being introduced to the question «Who is a man?»

Moses Maimonides (1135 - 1204), the most famous Jewish philosopher of the Middle Ages, included the doctrine of the resurrection as the last of his Thirteen Principles of Faith — «I believe with perfect faith that there will be a resurrection of the dead at the time when it shall please the Creator.»

Philosophers, as Nietzsche made powerfully clear, are some of the most anti-family people around.

If Christianity is skittish at best about familial nobility and not just dignity, as a pridefully creative project of life - defining meaning, is it not remarkable that the most venomous and blatant of the anti-Christian philosophers is so circumspect and muted on the matter?

Nicholas Berdyaev the Russian philosopher was most critical of the traditional Christian ethics which confined itself to the ethics of law and ethics of grace and ignored the ethics of creativity, while secular modernity to which Christian modernism succumbed, elevated the human vocation of creativity as supreme and as capable by itself of solving the problem of destructivity within it without the need of grace and even of law in the long run Anthropology got perverted on all sides by converting Creation into an order of static laws which are only to be obeyed and perfected by grace in Catholic thought and by getting validated for collective existence without criticism but to be rejected as totally irrelevant in the realm of existence in grace in Protestant thought.

The November 2014 conference was as fine as any I've attended, and for me the most memorable presentation was by John Finnis, the Oxford - and - Notre Dame philosopher of law.

This meant that, as a philosopher and theologian, I should study the system of thought that was most important and effective in shaping the policies that governed national and international affairs.

Most of these lectures aim at bringing the insights of Hinduism and Buddhism closer to Indian and Western Christians as well as philosophers, to deepen their understanding of faith and expand it to other forms of belief.43 His anthology «The Vedic Experience» which has been accepted and respected by many Hindus, tries to present texts from the Veda and the Upanishads in such a way that they become open towards other beliefs and transparent for the depth of faith.44 An important aspect of his literary production, already central at the beginning, but gaining prominence again lately, has been to address a Western public that faces the challenge of having to seek its religious identity and not being able to take it for granted.

First, until quite recently, most of the influential analytic philosophers of religion challenging God's existence in the face of evil had posed the problem as a strictly logical one, and thus Plantinga and other analytic philosophers of religion can hardly be criticized justly for having expended a great deal of effort in response.

But whereas most modern philosophers have taken as their paradigm case Ms. Smith's visual experience of a physical object, Whitehead takes as the paradigm case the causal efficacy of Ms. Smith's immediately past occasion of experience in the present one, or Ms. Smith's present prehension of that past occasion.

Buridan was unusual in that he was a diocesan priest at a time when most academics were either Dominicans or Franciscans, and in that he remained in the Arts faculty as a philosopher when most intellectuals of his caliber saw philosophy as a stage on the way to a doctorate in theology.

Perhaps the three most influential philosophers of Judaism in the twentieth century are the neo «Kantian Hermann Cohen, the existentialist Martin Buber, and the recent hero of postmodern thought Emmanuel Levinas, whose influence as Jews on secular thought is rivalled only by that of Ludwig Wittgenstein and Noam Chomsky.

Lindbeck observed that in their emphasis upon the function of religious language as propositional information about objective realities, conservative theologians tend to confirm the approach to religion taken by most Anglo - American analytic philosophers.

The fact that science has now destroyed the Newtonian framework (so far as relevant to the issue we are discussing) seems not to have been properly grasped by most philosophers, though Whitehead (1926) has spelled out the story with great power.

As for Aristotle, he's the one who claimed women are subhuman, as incapable of reasoned thought as an acorn is of becoming a butterfly or philosopher, never dreaming that one day most of the people studying his works in the universities would be femalAs for Aristotle, he's the one who claimed women are subhuman, as incapable of reasoned thought as an acorn is of becoming a butterfly or philosopher, never dreaming that one day most of the people studying his works in the universities would be femalas incapable of reasoned thought as an acorn is of becoming a butterfly or philosopher, never dreaming that one day most of the people studying his works in the universities would be femalas an acorn is of becoming a butterfly or philosopher, never dreaming that one day most of the people studying his works in the universities would be female.

Like other public philosophers such as Walter Lippmann, John Courtney Murray, and Reinhold Niebuhr, he understood that the self - evident truths on which this experiment is premised are not self - evident to most people; they have to be rediscovered and rearticulated in every generation.

Nevertheless, «with the exception of a few process philosophers, most postmodern thinkers ignore Whitehead as a potential source for postmodern thought.

«My thesis,» he writes, is that the most important task confronting Americans as a polity is, in part, a philosophers task.

It is perhaps interesting to note that the term «being» is actually a form of the verb, even though most philosophers use it as a substantive noun.

Some philosophers who apply reductionism to philosophy call themselves physicalists, because they regard physics as dealing with things at their most reduced level and they wish to follow suit.

Or consider the explanations for religious belief proposed by evolutionary psychologists, now recognised by most philosophers of biology as involving more theoretical assumptions than empirical evidence.

The pagan temptation,» as the philosopher Thomas Molnar described it, is hardly new — the Church has been fighting paganism since the time of Christ — but what is new is its aggressive resurgence, its seduction of so many Christians, and the warnings Pope Francis has issued against it.The Pope's scorching words against paganism have not been well - received by many, but Francis has gone right on assailing it, particularly in areas that pagans care about most: the environment and sex.Francis has been a bold and eloquent defender of the environment, and understands that protecting the environment is not a recent fad, but a long - standing Catholic principle, highlighted by many of Francis's predecessors.