Not exact matches
Lewontin, a Marxist whose
philosophical sophistication exceeds that of Sagan by several orders of magnitude, came to see the
issue as essentially one of
basic intellectual commitment rather than factual knowledge.
Woody poses
basic religious or
philosophical questions often ignored by the secularly oriented as «too deep» and skipped over by religionists engrossed in particular
issues.
The
basic issue in question is
philosophical; however, there is reason to believe that Whitehead's reading of the Einsteinian formulation is not necessarily the most satisfactory.
The
philosophical issue here — and it is a quite fundamental one — is whether the
basic acting of an existent is, or can be, a psychical or mental act.
But, alas, and this is not without its significance as showing the nature of the
philosophical task, the result of Martin's critique is not to shake my confidence in my side of the
basic issue that divides us.
I was recently a consultant on a study of 11 countries that examined what we called «normative conflicts» —
basic conflicts about
philosophical and moral
issues.
David Spratt and Philip Sutton, Climate Code Red (Fitzroy, Australia: Friends of the Earth, 2008), http://www.climatecodered.net, 4; Brown, Plan B 3.0, 3; James Hansen, et al., «Climate Change and Trace Gases,»
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 365 (2007), 1925 — 54; James Lovelock, The Revenge of Gaia (New York:
Basic Books, 2006), 34; Minqi Li, «Climate Change, Limits to Growth, and the Imperative for Socialism,» this
issue; «Arctic Summers Ice - Free «by 2013,»» BBC News, December 12, 2007.
John Carter wrote: > For libertarian conservatives, there is a chance to learn and grow about the
issue, but only if they don't use as their source blogs like this (and many others that are far worse) that continue to post clever
philosophical musings to chip away at the
basic idea of climate change...
For libertarian conservatives, there is a chance to learn and grow about the
issue, but only if they don't use as their source blogs like this (and many others that are far worse) that continue to post clever
philosophical musings to chip away at the
basic idea of climate change, rather assess what those actual facts of the
issue are, and more importantly, why they are relevant.