Sentences with phrase «between individual human»

Pistoletto began making self - portraits in the 1950's, using increasingly reflective surfaces and exploring the relationship between the individual human figure and anonymous spectator.

Now this passage deals only with the relationship between the individual human person and the state, which is the institution of fullest human community.

Not exact matches

For most of the history of human civilization, it has provided a basis for trust between people and governments, and between individuals through exchange.

The relationship between God and man, with which theology (Jewish or Christian) is primarily concerned, could now only be postulated if it contributed to the elaboration of ethical theory Moreover, the only divine - human relationship that this new anthropocentrism would tolerate was between a postulated deity and the human individual.

The proper course, it seems to me, is for church leaders and people of good will to make every effort to connect the human - rights project to an affirmation of the essential interplay between individual rights and democratic values.

They have always had as their goal the reconciliation between human solidarity on the one hand and the dignity of individual, concrete persons, situations, and facts on the other.

Islam, in placing the responsibility on each individual, makes no distinction between human beings; each is given the same rights and responsibilities regardless of his sex, race, color, or other differences.

The Quranic texts do not give in detail the code of laws regulating dealings — human actions — but they give the general principles which guide people to perfection, to a life of harmony — to an inner harmony between man's appetites and his spiritual desires, to harmony between man and the natural world, and to a harmony between individuals as well as a harmony with the society in which men live.

One can see recent standoffs in Geneva on so - called traditional values resolutions as manifestations of a conflict between two rival conceptions of human dignity: one, supported by most Western advocates, that focuses on individual autonomy; and the other, proposed by voices from the global East and South, that focuses on traditional understandings of human nature.

The distance between the moral principles which the Church proclaims and — leaving aside for the moment the question of the Church's pastoral office — which alone can be propounded doctrinally, and the concrete prescriptions by which the individual and the various human communities freely shape their existence, has now increased to an extent that introduces what is practically a difference of nature as compared with earlier times.

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.

Even important human needs can conflict with one another, not only within an individual but also between individuals and groups.

He shows us that our sense of the alternatives — that we must choose between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith, between prophet and institution, between catastrophic kingdom and inner kingdom between being political and being sectarian, between the individual and the social — derives not from categories intrinsic to the human condition but from a depoliticization of salvation that has made Christianity a faithful servant of the status quo.

In that sacred space that stands between the individual and the Creator, no state, society, or other human person dares to intervene.

In the history of both the individual and the human race, writes Buber, the proper alternation between I - It and I - Thou is disturbed by a progressive augmentation of the world of It.

In this light, the basic motivations which drive human behavior are understood as arising out of the relationship between the individual and God the Creator.

The only context in which human life gains coherence, stability, and purpose is found in the transcendent relationship between the individual and God the Creator.

He provides the balanced picture again between knower and known, without an a priori, in going on to say: «The key to development is a mind capable of thinking in technological terms and grasping the fully human meaning of human activities, within the context of the holistic meaning of the individual's being.»

Speaking to popular culture blog Assignment X, the author said this as he again described the difference between his work and Tolkien's: «I think ultimately the battle between good and evil is weighed within the individual human heart, not necessarily between an army of people dressed in white and an army of people dressed in black.

My supposition is that the individualization of sin is the trivialization of sin, and given the systematic connection between our understanding of sin and our understanding of God as the one who addresses us in our human plight, the trivialization of sin has an inexorable affect upon two areas: the doctrine of God, and the sense of individual and corporate responsibility for social ills.

In the simplest terms then, human social experience is a form of togetherness in which there is a sharing of feeling, a concordance of emotion, between two or more individuals who become immanently related one to another by the very character of their mutual experience.

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.

«This responsibility for God's earth means that human beings, endowed with intelligence, must respect the laws of nature and the delicate equilibria existing between the creatures of this world... The laws found in the Bible dwell on relationships, not only among individuals but also with other living beings... by their mere existence they bless him and give him glory»... «the Lord rejoices in all his works» (Ps 104:31).

The culture in which the global society finds its cohesion needs to be able to draw all human groups and individuals into some form of shared life, a degree of commonality that allows for harmony between peoples and also with the planetary environment.

If human beings could communicate among themselves by direct sympathy, then they would be as mutually dependent upon each other as the body and mind are; and this condition would deny individual persons freedom and distinct individuality over against one another.26 Although the relationship between one's body and mind seems to be immediately social, Hartshorne holds that interchange between human minds is almost never by direct contact and generally through mediation of vibrating particles of air and other kinds of «matter.»

It's a neat way to think about it, and also points to a collective - personality with a memory and an interaction that takes place between individuals, almost a meta - observation on what it means to be human, if you will.

In political and social thought, no Christian has ever written a more profound defense of the democratic idea and its component parts, such as the dignity of the person, the sharp distinction between society and the state, the role of practical wisdom, the common good, the transcendent anchoring of human rights, transcendent judgment upon societies, and the interplay of goodness and evil in human individuals and institutions.

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.

It actually has to do with how we view humanity — do we see it as a bunch of individuals, or do we see a connection between all humans and understand things in a more - collective sense, a collective «personality» if you will (c.f. Jung's Collective Unconscious)?

Among those who are concerned with human wellbeing it shows up between those who believe each individual should be given an equal opportunity and those who see these individuals as parts of systems that prevent genuine equality of opportunity from being possible.

The constitution of a society prescribes the forms of justice only when it provides for that kind of interaction among individuals, and between individuals and the physical environment, which creates the human mind, and which sustains that scope of understanding, power of action and richness of appreciation which is distinctively human in contrast to the lower animals.

Reinhold stresses not the contrast between the good of the whole and defeat of the self - assertive individual parts, but rather the gap between the ideal and actuality — between the absolute ethical ideals that humans conceive and the limited goals that can actually be achieved by collective action.

Douglas Farrow is certainly right to ground a vision of human sexuality in the created order and to distinguish between the means of human flourishing and individual human desires or orientations.

Rituals are forms of repetitive individual and collective behaviors that, over time, forge links between the «everyday» and the «extraordinary», therefore infusing human behavior with meaning.

He saw human beings as tending to create a number of small and hospitable polities» the household and the city, especially» whose proportions allow a sane balance between collective duty and individual prudence, universal truth and local idiom, society and the citizen.

However, a society that honors human nature accepts some trade - offs between individual freedom and social well - being by, for instance, outlawing or heavily regulating such markets.

It is true, as Hall points out, that for Whitehead ordering principles are «immanent» within particular occasions (see UP 261 - 70), but in most cases those ordering principles also reflect the «mutual relations» of individuals, as well as the «community in character» pervading groups or societies of individuals (AI 142).13 This is particularly true of persons: the relations between occasions which constitute the human body and brain, and the «community of character» of the succession of personal experiences, give an essential element of unity to human experience.

In every form of human belonging there is the tension between «me as an individual» and «me as a part of the group,» large or small.

(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.)

Without immortality it is not simply true of individuals that, as another put it, life is «a blind, brief flicker between two oblivions»; in the long run that is also true of the whole human race.

It is in the light of this distinction between freedom and determinism that we can reassess the above examples of characteristically human and characteristically animal behaviour to determine whether animals have these two orders of being within their individual identities.

But this gets the relation between human and divine precisely backwards: God does not adapt himself, nor does he alter divine revelation, in order to suit our individual needs.

First Things often confronts «social sin» (for example, relationships between human communities that are not in accordance with God's plan and for which responsibility can not necessarily be attributed to an individual).

Out of this dialogue between the individual and social poles of human existence emerges what we call truth (cf. my «Linguistic Phenomenology,» International Philosophical Quarterly, December 1973).

7 Interpretation of the unconscious in terms of Whitehead's doctrine of physical feeling affords a means whereby one might reconcile the apparent conflict between the Freudian individual unconscious and the Jungian collective unconscious: the inheritance ingredient in the human event comprises both idiosyncratic elements immediately relevant to the thread of personal identity and universal elements which have lower grades of relevance.

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

Advocacy is political, even when it is about something seemingly so basic as protecting human beings in need (for comments on the links between liberalism as a political ideology and MSF's concern for individual human life, see Scott - Smith 2013).

We differentiated between computational approaches (either based on volume data, such as the number of mentions related to a party or candidate or the occurrence of particular hashtags; or endorsement data, such as the number of Twitter followers, Facebook friends or the number of «likes» received on Facebook walls), sentiment analysis approaches, that pay attention to the language and try to attach a qualitative meaning to the comments (posts, tweets) published by social media users employing automated tools for sentiment analysis (i.e., via natural language processing models or the employment of pre-defined ontological dictionaries), and finally what we call supervised and aggregated sentiment analysis (SASA), that is, techniques that exploit the human codification in their process and focus on the estimation of the aggregated distribution of the opinions, rather than on individual classification of each single text (Ceron et al. 2016).

Rather, the complexity of human behavior results from the interplay between general inherited instincts and factors contingent on our individual existences in certain sociocultural settings.

Then they counted the number of mtDNA differences between individuals and used the modern human mutation rate to estimate how long it might have taken those mutations to appear.