Sentences with phrase «as objective things»

Not exact matches

With small teams working remotely, he says, one must be extremely clear about objectives and roles, and frequently verify that everyone is clear on such things as who is managing a project and what criteria are used to tell when a project is finished.

In fact, I've known some CEOs who, the worse things get, get «lazier» still: They work harder to get the right people involved in solving the problem, while personally detaching themselves as much from it as they can to remain objective.

They have to know three things: that you trust them; that the system is objective, not subjective; and that you've got their backs -; rain or shine -; as long as they give it their all.

While there is no such thing as «the right amount» when it comes to cash or any other asset class, investors need to consider both their return objectives and risk tolerance when making allocation decisions that are right for them.

The forward - looking statements in this presentation relate to, among other things, our objectives, goals, strategies, intentions, plans, beliefs, expectations and estimates, and can generally be identified by the use of words such as «may», «will», «could», «should», «would», «likely», «suspect», «outlook», «expect», «intend», «estimate», «anticipate», «believe», «plan», «forecast», «objective», «seek», «aim», «continue», «goal», «restore», «embark» and «endeavour» (or the negative thereof) and words and expressions of similar import, and include statements concerning possible or assumed future results.

It must also shape itself to meet other critical criteria, such as the investor's time horizon, his or her objective in investing in the first place, tolerance for risk, needs for income, possible tax obligations, that sort of thing.

But we do see things consistent with the Bible, To take a concrete example, the Bible states that Israel wold be destroyed as a nation, but after a long period of time would become a nation again, It's a matter of belief whether the Bible made a God - inspired prophecy or a lucky guess, But it's a matter of objective fact that Israel was destroyed by the Romans and became a nation again in 1948.

@D - Bo «Let's define what objective moral values mean so as to maybe clarify things.

Or that such a thing as your concept of Objective Morality actually exists.

Why would the HORRIBLE HEARTLESS things done by God qualify him as a good source for anyone's idea of «objective morality?

But, all things being equal, I'll take a process that helps to screen out the subjective as much as possible rather than one that believes that personal revelation is a valid method for defining the objective world.

As to scientific proof I am glad you agree objective proofs are limited to the material scientific while Jesus speaks to the things of God which are not the things of this world.

There is no such thing, of course, as completely disinterested or objective criticism.

Whichever the case was at a specific time, as with many things besides religion, they were merely considered in light of real objectives — total control over the people.

This point of view fully respects the progressive experimental concentration of human thought in a more and more lively awareness of its unifying role; but in place of the undefined point of convergence required as term for this evolution it is the clearly defined personal reality of the incarnate Word that is made manifest to us and established for us as our objective, that Word «in whom all things subsist.»

And therein he reaches a metaphysical understanding of creative process as the becoming, the perishing, and the objective immortalization of those things which jointly constitute what he terms stubborn fact.

There is no such thing as objective sin of which we have missed the mark.

The public philosophy is the claim that the objective law of right, written into the nature of things, makes on citizens, as contrasted with the claims that the citizens make on the natural and social reality on which they depend.

As to your last paragraph, how do you know exactly that there are such things as «objective morals» name one thing that you believe man couldn't have come up with for themselves if god wasn't around to hand it ouAs to your last paragraph, how do you know exactly that there are such things as «objective morals» name one thing that you believe man couldn't have come up with for themselves if god wasn't around to hand it ouas «objective morals» name one thing that you believe man couldn't have come up with for themselves if god wasn't around to hand it out.

In particular, the denial that epistemology is wholly prior to ontology; the denial that we can have an absolutely certain starting point; the idea that those elements of experience thought by most people to be primitive givens are in fact physiologically, personally, and socially constructed; the idea that all of our descriptions of our observations involve culturally conditioned interpretations; the idea that our interpretations, and the focus of our conscious attention, are conditioned by our purposes; the idea that the so - called scientific method does not guarantee neutral, purely objective, truths; and the idea that most of our ideas do not correspond to things beyond ourselves in any simple, straightforward way (for example, red as we see it does not exist in the «red brick» itself).

If a lion kills a zebra we don't call it «murder,» and if a great white forcibly copulates with a female, we don't call it «rap.e» If everything is objective to people, moral code being up for grabs, it seems quite feasible to live in a world where these things labeled as crimes are all just as ok as in the animal world!

Even if you believe the Bible does not contain forgeries there's still no objective standard, because 1 John 2:27 says «the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things.»

To take up your point on morality, I can not fathom how there is such a thing as «objective morality».

I once cite «Realism and Idealism,» the passage about objective idealism in which Collingwood clearly states his conception of the world of nature: «Thus it conceives the world of nature as something derived from and dependent upon something logical prior to itself, a world of immaterial ideas; but this is not a mental world or a world of mental activities or of things depending on mental activity although it is an intelligible world or a world in which mind, when mind comes into existence, finds itself completely at home.

There are many mysterious things about the modern world, but the biggest mystery of all is how «the sexual revolution» is viewed as some sort of feminist triumph, when the objective truth is that if the most despicable, cretinous, woman - loathing men of a century ago had outlined their....

colin: «To take up your point on morality, I can not fathom how there is such a thing as «objective morality».

Only I - Thou sees this wholeness as the whole person in unreasoned relation with what is over against him rather than as a sum of parts, some of which are labeled objective and hence oriented around the thing known and some subjective and hence oriented around the knower.

Since when any two things are brought close together in this space (whatever «close together» can mean) they blend and a single new third thing emerges, there is no standpoint that can qualify as «objective.»

Objective names such as Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism have only come into use in recent centuries; this phenomenon, implying that religions are «things», is described as «reification».

If there is such a thing as a merely objective event, certainly we can have no knowledge of it as such.

Speaking as one who fought, unknowingly, with myself, to become the hearded cattle, to deny true knowledge in favour of some «objective» thing outside myself — fuck em!

They can manufacture their own meaning, purpose, intention, or objective but those things would be irrational, illogical and delusional as they would be contrary to reality.

And as spiritual minds we also perceive the universal relationships which define the objective nature of the things within our experience.

For this reason he understood the term hypostasis / substance not in the objective sense (of a reality present within us), but in the subjective sense, as an expression of an interior attitude -LSB-...] In the twentieth century this interpretation became prevalent -LSB-...] but -LSB-...] Faith is not merely a personal reaching out towards things to come that are still totally absent -LSB-...] It gives us even now something of the reality we are waiting for, and this present reality constitutes for us a «proof of the things that are still unseen.

This can not be done wilfully, of course, but emerges spontaneously from a particular way of appreciating the world: as an objective and beautiful thing, a symbolic reality whose fabric reveals, in a great variety of ways, the forms or archetypes of the world's order (pp. 13,125).

Niebuhr said that he was not confident that it was wrong to accept Whitehead's «objective immortality» as the real thing, but he said that he preferred to leave it a mystery.

Rorty, on the other hand, observes that we use the term «objective» sometimes to mean «representing things as they really are» and at other times to designate «the presence of, or the hope for, agreement among inquirers.»

In the view of Bohm (1973, 1977, 1980, 1985a, 1985b), science as we know it describes the objective aspect of things — the external aspect or what he calls the explicate order of the world.

Therein he reaches a metaphysical understanding of creative process as the becoming, the perishing, and the objective immortalization of those things which jointly constitute what he calls stubborn fact.

There is equally an intertwining between the objective body and the lived - body - now, called «the two «sides» of our body, the body as sensible and the body as sentient» (VIV 136)-- just as there is between the thing perceived and the perceiving, the flesh of the world and the body's flesh (VIV 134, 136,215).

There is no need for the concrescing actual occasion objectively to prehend some complex eternal object derivative from the consequent nature of God so as to initiate its process of self — constitution since there is an objective order of things apart from God already in place for it to prehend and incorporate into its self - constitution.

NO such thing as faith in Gods existance... the Bible teaches KNOWLEDGE of His existance... and every places that refers to faith refers to faith in His Promises (see Hebrews 11) you try to limit to objective knowledge as the only way thus living inside a closed mind and within a box

We both accept, I think, these four related things about human knowing: (1) sentient experience of «physical things» is intrinsically infused with objective meaning, purposefulness and value; (2) flowing out, of this and intertwined with it is, at least for humans, «cognition» of the physical, and moral experience of such value; (3) this moral experience and engagement reveals the spiritual realm as something foundational to and «abstractly distinguishable» from the physical realm — values for Ward, mind for me; and (4) one piece of evidence for making such a distinction is the uniquely «publicly....

The bible appears to promote violence in selected passages, but the very fact that Christians analyze scripture with the underlying belief that there is such a thing as an objective truth and morality we don't have the freedom in our doctrine to falsely interpret passages from Leviticus to justify killing while ignoring Christ and the ten commandments.

A commodity is therefore a mysterious thing, simply because in it the social character of man's labor appears to them as an objective character stamped upon the product of that labor; because the relation of the producers to the sum total of their own labor is presented to them as a social relation, existing not between themselves, but between the products of their labor.

==== @GOPer «Incomprehension that morality is a societal consensus of conscience; changing and pluralistic:» @Chad «there is no such thing as objective morality without God.

He can thus appropriate the idealist view that there is no such thing as immediate apprehension or direct knowledge of particulars and define the objective world as a product of our ideal activity.

The reason God counts as a logical reason for where objective moral values came from is because traditionally God has been defined as the greatest thing imaginable, the very source of good itself.

Even if you think you can be objective, if the public views your actions as trying to sweep things under the rug, this does real damage, not only to your church but to the entire Christian community.

Although I've found it very cathartic to speak, vent and end occasionally rant about all things Arsenal, we need to act carefully and intelligently right now or we're going to get played by this club even worse than at present... the pro-Wengerites and the suits, who represent a considerable proportion of the season ticket holders, don't want to believe that there is no plan and that Wenger has mailed it in for several years now or that things are going to get much worse before they get better... why would they... many have spent a considerable sum buying some of the highest priced tickets in the World... they want to have a front row seat to see something special and to be seen doing so, which simply provides ample justification for the expense and the time invested... to many of them, Wenger is the sun in their soccer universe... his awkward disposition, misplaced arrogance and his utter lack of balls makes him a rather unusual cult figure, but the cerebral narrative seemed to embolden those who already felt pretty highly of themselves... many might not even of really liked football that much before his arrival and rarely games they weren't attending... as such, they desperately believe that Wenger, and only Wenger, can supply them with their required fix... if he goes, they were wrong and that's a tough pill to swallow... they would have to admit that they were duped... they will definitely resent whoever made them feel this way, but of course it will be too late by then... so when we go overboard with ridiculous comments bordering of anarchy, it scares the shit out of them and they shift their blame towards us rather than at those who really perpetrated this act of treason... we aren't the enemy... we simply woke much earlier and the reason our comments have gotten more vile in recent years is out of utter frustration... in order for any real change to occur at this club we need to bring as many supporters as possible with us or the big money interests will fade and our ultimate objective will be lost... so it's time to focus on the head instead of the heart for now