Sentences with phrase «because individual human beings»

Because individual humans are susceptible to corruption, senility, bribery, relying on information that is 10 years out of date, and a whole host of other problems it is important to either listen to the majority of experts or learn enough about the topic to understand the material yourself.

Not exact matches

Self - comparison can be a strong influence on human behavior, and because people tend to display the most positive aspects of their lives on social media, it is possible for an individual to believe that their own life compares negatively to what they see presented by others.

«I believe that the efficient market hypothesis fails because it ignores human nature, particularly the nature of most individuals to be followers, not leaders.

Each of the three will denote the good for a human individual.1 Because of its long association with the liberal tradition, «interest» is so often used to mean an individual's private happiness that the phrase «private view of interest» may seem redundant.

He pointed out how, because of the dominant reductionist view of human nature, scientists are increasingly tempted to treat the human individual as «an object to be investigated, measured and experimented upon» rather than as an «irreducible subject».

It is wrong because it distorts sex, which is meant to bring two human beings together, instead of closing the individual in on himself or herself.

God is evolution in His process of will implementation, humanity change in this process but not necesarily aware because our existence is very limited in time.and we are not as individual the ultimate objective, but God himself, Our existence is just part of the process for Him to become Himself in the future.We exist only in our time of existence.From pure Energy which is Him 13.7 billion years ago, to us humans 200,000 years ago, to what we are now today, to super humans in the future, to what He will be in the far Future.THE ULTIMATE HIMSELF Is the objetive, you are just part of the process you IDIOis evolution in His process of will implementation, humanity change in this process but not necesarily aware because our existence is very limited in time.and we are not as individual the ultimate objective, but God himself, Our existence is just part of the process for Him to become Himself in the future.We exist only in our time of existence.From pure Energy which is Him 13.7 billion years ago, to us humans 200,000 years ago, to what we are now today, to super humans in the future, to what He will be in the far Future.THE ULTIMATE HIMSELF Is the objetive, you are just part of the process you IDIOis very limited in time.and we are not as individual the ultimate objective, but God himself, Our existence is just part of the process for Him to become Himself in the future.We exist only in our time of existence.From pure Energy which is Him 13.7 billion years ago, to us humans 200,000 years ago, to what we are now today, to super humans in the future, to what He will be in the far Future.THE ULTIMATE HIMSELF Is the objetive, you are just part of the process you IDIOis just part of the process for Him to become Himself in the future.We exist only in our time of existence.From pure Energy which is Him 13.7 billion years ago, to us humans 200,000 years ago, to what we are now today, to super humans in the future, to what He will be in the far Future.THE ULTIMATE HIMSELF Is the objetive, you are just part of the process you IDIOis Him 13.7 billion years ago, to us humans 200,000 years ago, to what we are now today, to super humans in the future, to what He will be in the far Future.THE ULTIMATE HIMSELF Is the objetive, you are just part of the process you IDIOIs the objetive, you are just part of the process you IDIOT.

So then perhaps it is no poem, or at any rate not one for which any human being is responsible, nor yet mankind; ah, now I understand you, it was for this reason you called my procedure the most wretched act of plagiarism, because I did not steal from any individual, nor from the race, but from the God or, as it were, stole the God away, and though I am only an individual man, aye, even a wretched thief, blasphemously pretended to be the God.

Two and a half centuries later the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, in the «Preface to the Second Edition» of his Critique of Pure Reason (1787), appropriated this «Copernican Revolution» in thought for his own shift from the presumed objectivity of what we know to the act of conscious knowing itself.2 It remains a contestable assessment because the movement is precisely in the opposite direction: After Copernicus, we humans are no longer understood to be in the center of the universe, whereas Kant concentrated precisely on the subjectivity of individual knowing.

Not only is the mutable world separated from its divine principle — the One — by intervals of emanation that descend in ever greater alienation from their source, but because the highest truth is the secret identity between the human mind and the One, the labor of philosophy is one of escape: all multiplicity, change, particularity, every feature of the living world, is not only accidental to this formless identity, but a kind of falsehood, and to recover the truth that dwells within, one must detach oneself from what lies without, including the sundry incidentals of one's individual existence; truth is oblivion of the flesh, a pure nothingness, to attain which one must sacrifice the world.

Modern moral and political thought has often focused on the question of human rights: What rights, if any, belong to all human individuals solely because they are human?

Because the order created by human achievements is greater insofar as each individual benefits from and contributes to it, our comprehensive telos prescribes pursuit of everyone's emancipation.

This is so because the traditional African conception of human existence is primarily social rather than individual.

Because the individual human subject» Leff's godlet» is the modernist starting point, it seems reasonable to place a heavy burden of justification upon anyone who seeks to restrain the liberty of that subject.

So morality (I hate using that word because the concept is really human decency) is actually based in the individual, and imperfectly codified in the cultural; it is not distant or God - based.

Similarly, because we tend to associate «person» with the human body - mind individual abstracted from his relation to the Thou, we forget that he is only a «person» when he is actually or potentially in such a relation and that the term «personal» applies as much to the relationship itself as to the members of the relation.

Less shallow because it recognizes at least that the individual is not master of his fate and can not live for himself alone, but still shallow in supposing that the human group — class, race or species — can do so.

In sum, because it treats belief as an atomistic decision taken piecemeal by individuals rather than a holistic response to family life, Nietzsche's madman and his offspring, secularization theory, appear to present an incomplete version of how some considerable portion of human beings actually come to think and behave about things religious — not one by one and all on their own, but rather mediated through the elemental connections of husband, wife, child, aunt, great - grandfather, and the rest.

Ely complains that even if God triumphs over the evil of «perpetual perishing» (which is the «ultimate evil in the actual world»), the ultimate evil is still ultimate for us humans because we do perish as individuals.

It would be impossible to give men freedom of choice when the social organization has become so sensitive and delicate that every choice, even the most commonplace, is liable to react on the community, and every opinion or feeling Is treated as a serious matter because it may affect the Individual's productivity or social adjustment, or his human and public relations.&raquis liable to react on the community, and every opinion or feeling Is treated as a serious matter because it may affect the Individual's productivity or social adjustment, or his human and public relations.&raquIs treated as a serious matter because it may affect the Individual's productivity or social adjustment, or his human and public relations.»

It could be argued that the Platonic doctrine of the immortality of the soul was simply a refined and highly sophisticated version of that belief in an after - life which had been widespread in the ancient world in one form or another, and which Israel had come almost completely to abandon because of her psychosomatic view of the unity of the human individual.

Though every individual free act risks total self - commitment, it always surrenders itself into the whole of the one free act of the one finite human life, because every such act is performed within the horizon of existence whence it receives its weight and proportion.

The individual in a human society in process of collective organization has not the right to remain inactive, that is to say, not to seek to develop himself to his fullest extent: because upon his individual perfection depends the perfection of all his fellows.

Of course, it is possible to reply that the alleged stumbling block occurs every day according to Christian teaching, because what here in the case of the first human being is felt to be contrary to the fundamental conceptions of metaphysics and the methodological basis of natural science, happens continually at the origin of every individual human soul, at the genesis of every single human being, for such souls equally with those of the first human beings, are created by God directly out of nothing.

Or, to put it in other terms, the boundary between the ancient world and the modern is to be traced, not in the Aegean or the middle Mediterranean, but in the pages of the Old Testament, where we find revealed attainments in the realms of thought, facility in literary expression, profound religious insights, and standards of individual and social ethics, all of which are intimately of the modern world because, indeed, they have been of the vital motivating forces which made our world of the human spirit.

Because, implicitly or explicitly, it is always by reference to some conception of the overall and final human good that other goods are ordered, the life of every individual, household or community by its orderings gives expression, wittingly or unwittingly, to some conception of the human good.

Ockham rejected the real existence of a human nature because he had concluded that one can only know particular individuals and that universals that can be applied to multiple individuals, such as human nature, or the essence of a dog or a tree, or properties such as white or black, square or round were only names that we create in our mind.

It is because many of the terms lack meaning that squares with verifiable human experience (must be verifiable to others, as well, for purposes of proof; but inverse this requirement, as I did with language, and you end up with the following: if something can't be evidenced to others, there is a good likelihood that it is not what the individual thinks it is).

We can dream of a perfectly balanced society, where the difference between individual initiative and solidarity are reduced to a simple state of tension, where human beings are judged because of what they are rather than the added - value they produce, where cultures are considered to be equally valid expressions of being and where scientific and technical progress is oriented towards the well - being of all rather than the enrichment of a few.

Drawing from the Islamic imperative that «God is one» and from the Qur» an's teaching about Adam and Eve, Rauf arrives at two essential principles: that all humans are equal «because we are born of one man and woman,» and that «because we are equal... we have certain inalienable liberties,» such as the freedom to accept or reject God, to think for ourselves (ijtihad) and to make individual choices without coercion.

For the society in question is an instantiation of objective Spirit because in its corporate existence and activity it transcends the being and activity of its members taken singly; yet it itself comes to be and is sustained in existence only in virtue of the mutual interrelation of those same individual human beings.

Because the possibility of «twinning» exists for that long in the first stages of embryonic development, one could argue that no individual human being can yet be present - and that, hence, experimentation should be permitted.

Because of the enormous number of physical variables on which it depends, and even more the growing predominance of the psychic (individual choice) over the purely statistical, it seems to be decidedly the case that human evolution goes beyond the bounds of exact calculation.

Individual morality differs because it is closer to the flow and reality of direct human interrelationships.

(I say «not others» because it is crucial that we not be acquainted with individuals which fill what is for us a relatively clear gap between humans and nonhuman species.)

and this could only have been possible because of a century of the cultural revolutions about human rights, sexuality (individual expression), religion, etc..

They believe that not only is human difference a healthy fact of life, but that individuals should understand the past and present dynamics of ethnic identity, relationships and groups, not only because it will make them more sure of themselves, but also because it will strengthen the democratic nature of tire total society.

And the politics that results from the dialogue is ghastly indeed, because the integration of a single soul calls for much more sacrifice of the parts to the whole than can ever be expected of individual human persons in a city.

Today the world, the environment and the human milieu which the individual finds himself confronted with, has become fluid, because it is planned and made by man himself.

The human individual, as a concrete instantiation of a rational and free nature, is «distinct by reason of dignity», and because of this we attribute to him the word person.

According to the Hebrew Scriptures, the now - fallen human race (of two) was left alone to sort out its own destiny, but we get an idea of where things were going, because the Creator did express approval of certain individuals and used his holy spirit to give them help, guidance, and power, if they had need of it, e.g. Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Daniel, and the other ancient prophets.

It is, of course, simpler to say that individual life begins at conception, but this is problematic because a single cell can not be said to be a human.

America's exceptional history as the only nation in the world with two centuries of political continuity stems from its people's love for individual rights, which they hold to be inalienable because they are granted by a power that no human agency dare oppose.

(The doctrine of the sin of the human race has often been misused because it has not been noticed that sin, common though it is to all, does not gather men together in a common concept, into a society or a partnership («any more than out in the churchyard the multitude of the dead constitute a society»), but it splits men into individuals and holds every individual fast as a sinner — a splitting which in another sense is both in correspondence with and teleologically in the direction of the perfection of existence.

Why would he think it immoral to try to save dozens of innocent victims — specific individual human beings about to be killed — because he was involved in a separate effort to save thousands of other men and women who were at risk of being rounded up and placed in those concentration camps?

Basically, doubles the income for that individual because you know there's gonna be treats or that doggy beer for sale at just as much a markup as human food / beer.

Such a star - centric system seems prone to wild variation because it's (1) dependent on individual consistency and players are human, and (2) those stars can get hurt.

His statement shows lack of respect to Wenger, his work and vision and also underestimates quality of every in individual in the current Arsenal squard.He also forgets that its been one fully season when he was able perform week in and week out for Arsenal and the he wants to leave, thats quite ungrateful and lack of human values.I think he does nt love the club because he is willing to destablise it.

In fact, there will always be rivalry between siblings because every human being is an individual with unique needs and personalities.

We may not all be in «this» together, because we're essentially making our own parenting decisions and taking care of unique, individual little humans and coming from varying backgrounds, but we can work side - by - side and support one another in our endeavors.