Sentences with phrase «eternal principles of»

That Whitehead sometimes thought of the initial data as having the virtual unity of a unified datum is indicated in this discussion of the fourth categoreal obligation: «The mental pole is the subject determining its own ideal of itself by reference to eternal principles of valuation autonomously modified in their application to its own physical objective datum» (PR 248 / 380F).

For Wilson these roots and some of this knowledge are themselves guided by what he believes are the universal and eternal principles of Darwinian evolutionary theory Wilson never acknowledges that, by relying on that theory and by generalizing it, he subscribes to principles that transcend particular histories just as surely as do the ideas of the theological and philosophical transcendentalists.

The justification for any relevance extending beyond actuality would have to depend upon the internal relatedness of the eternal objects ordered as a realm, The occasion incorporates these new elements in forming its «ideal of itself by reference to eternal principles of valuation.»

The mental pole starts with the conceptual registration of the physical pole.10... The mental pole is the subject determining its own ideal of itself by reference to eternal principles of valuation autonomously modified in their application to its own physical objective datum.11 (PR 248.21 - 24,.34 - 41a, D in F)

We may summarize its affirmations as holding that God is a nontemporal actual entity, transcendent, immanent, eternal, cause of itself, the basis for reasons of the highest absoluteness, and possibly the source of the eternal principles of value.

Other writers, such as Raimundo Panikkar who has been mentioned already, have made a distinction between the Logos - the eternal principle of God's self - revelation - and Jesus of Nazareth in whom that principle is expressed.

By Christ he meant the principle of New Being, which is the eternal principle of God's self - revelation, which his contemporaries recognized in Jesus.27

Is it not always better to be freer in our choices from pressure of any authoritative norms (call this «agency,» an eternal principle of course), and equal in our right to make whatever choices we want?

Maybe the key is the word «soul» (psuche) in the context, which is not the «eternal principle of a person» but is instead the «life.»

Not exact matches

The Incarnation is not finally conditioned by the contingency of sin, for what happens at the Incarnation is that the selfdistinction of the eternal Son from the Father, which is the ontological principle of creation and its history, itself takes «historical form» and so achieves its full extension.

They say then that it is more simple to believe at once in the eternal pre-existence of the world, as it is now going on, and may for ever go on by the principle of reproduction which we see and witness, than to believe in the eternal pre-existence of an ulterior cause, or Creator of the world, a being whom we see not, and know not, of whose form substance and mode or place of existence, or of action no sense informs us, no power of the mind enables us to delineate or comprehend.

The argument which they rest on as triumphant and unanswerable is that, in every hypothesis of Cosmogony you must admit an eternal pre-existence of something; and according to the rule of sound philosophy, you are never to employ two principles to solve a difficulty when one will suffice.

But if there has always been a realm of finite actualities, and if the existence of such a realm (though not with any particular order) is as eternal and necessary as is the existence of God, then it also makes sense to think of eternally necessary principles descriptive of their possible relationships... [T] his correlation between freedom and intrinsic value is a necessary one, rather than a result of divine arbitrariness (PTE 711).

To pick out just three: that which Deleuze theorizes as «the virtual» bears a certain similarity to Whiteheadian pure potentiality; likewise, the elements of the virtual, namely, what Deleuze calls «Ideas,» play a role comparable to that attributed to eternal objects; finally, the factor in the Deleuzean system which corresponds most closely to Whitehead's notion of creativity — that ultimate principle by which the production of novelty is to be thought — goes, for Deleuze, under the name of «productive difference,» or «Difference in itself?»

This is God as the principle of limitation and the organ of novelty who achieves these ends by his ordered envisagement of the realm of eternal objects.

There can be no doubt that God makes decisions a propos of the disjunctive multiplicity of eternal objects; the difficulty is to establish in precisely what sense these divine decisions are distinguishable from the choices and calculations made by the Leibnizian deity Whitehead's dilemma seems to be this: on the one hand, the principle of classification is to be challenged by positing the primordiality of a world of eternal objects that knows «no exclusions, expressive in logical terms»; on the other hand, positing pure potentiality as a «boundless and unstructured infinity» (IWM 252) lacking all logical order would seem to be precisely that conceptual move which renders it «inefficacious» or «irrelevant.»

and he regards this principle as a third attribute of substantial «activity alongside eternal objects and actual entities.

Already in the earlier books it is clear that God functions as principle of limitation by ordering the eternal objects.

Dr. Khalifa holds that only the fundamental principles of Islam are eternal, while its specific commands are subject to readjustment.

By the «ontological principle,» the system of eternal objects, or possibles, must be grounded in some actual existent, in this case God's mental pole, or God's primordial nature.

In Science and the Modern World, we encountered four metaphysical principles: the underlying substantial activity and its three attributes — eternal objects, actual entities, and the principle of limitation.

This ground is, quite simply, Christian faith in Christ, for I am persuaded that no full or genuine understanding of Christ is possible so long as the scholastic principle that there is an essential and eternal difference between God and the world is accepted.

From this point of view, the scholastic principle that there is an essential and eternal difference between God and the world must necessarily result in a denial of the event or the reality of the Incarnation.

In other words, when you hate others, it is not the eternal life you have from God that is leading you to do so, but is instead because you are following the principle of death which comes from this world.

They suggest that the same eternal principle may be recognized in other great spiritual teachers such as the Buddha and Lord Krishna, and that too exclusive a focus on Jesus is liable to ignore the evidence of God's presence in the other great faith traditions of the world.

In order to interpret this core - principle of revelation, we must understand its essential presupposition; namely, that events are present «in» other events - present not just abstractly (through «eternal objects»), i.e., mediated by the «general,» but as singular events that effect their further history by their unique concreteness (PR 338).12 Whitehead recognizes precisely this constellation when he says:» [T] he truism that we can only conceive in terms of universals has been stretched to mean that we can only feel in terms of universals.

There are both conservative and progressive «simplifiers» who would decide the question what is best to be done here and now by eternal principles instead of by prudent practical considerations.

That aspect could be provided by the principle of limitation, for it limits the scope of eternal objects to those which could possibly ingress into actual occasions (SMW 178).

God, after an, did not assume the guise of a remote Rabbi who simply declared the principles of eternal truth, but in the Son he compassionately entered into the life of ordinary people and declared to them what God's Word meant to them.

This is one reason (it is not the only one) why Whitehead refuses to identify «universal» with «eternal object»: «The term «universal» is unfortunate in its application to eternal objects; for it seems to deny, and in fact it was meant to deny, that actual entities also fall within the scope of the principle of relativity.

In regard to Whitehead's introduction of God and eternal objects to explain human freedom he says: «If explanatory principles are available which could account for the sensation of freedom without at the same time taking us beyond the bounds of the actual world, we should explore them, and, if they prove to be consistent with the facts, adopt them in preference» (ISP 246).

Because it is actual, the principle of limitation is not itself an eternal object.

The principle of limitation does not contain or synthesize all the eternal objects.

To try to make specific rules out of eternal principles is to distort the Bible's message.

This also means that Mays fails to do justice to Whitehead's early remarks wherein the concept of God is seen as a principle of limitation beyond the realm of eternal objects (SMW, chapter 11).

Originally as the principle of limitation, the principle of concretion determined which of the eternal objects would be actualizable in the world, now each occasion actualizes itself in terms of God's gradation of values.

As William A. Christian recognized, however, Whitehead abandoned the notion of «realm» for a mere «multiplicity» of eternal objects.20 Yet we must recognize that the question occasioning this shift was not whether the eternal objects were ordered, but what was the justification of that ordering, given the ontological principle.

This passage may well include the extensive quotation from Hume on the missing shade of blue, since «the principle of relevant potentials» (86.23), Which Hume's discussion is meant to illustrate, can only refer to «The relevance of an eternal object in its role of lure as a fact inherent in the data» (PR 86.7).

Each actual occasion prehends the space - time continuum in its infinite entirety; that, says Whitehead, is nothing but an example of the general principle (also illustrated by prehension of qualitative eternal objects) that «actual fact includes in its own constitution real potentiality which is referent beyond itself.»

My criticism of Whitehead would be that while he makes token acknowledgment of the Aristotelian principle, his concept of God as a non-temporal entity ontologically grounding the realm of eternal objects shows that his heart basically remains with Plato.

By virtue of the ontological principle, «eternal objects» are not actual.

He has turned the «curse» in Genesis 3:16 into an eternal principle, and has centered on the role of «homemaker» in the text from Titus, to the exclusion of other Scriptural data.

I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.»

This principle does not hold true of the eternal objects; some of them can be dismissed completely by negative prehensions.

Yet conceptual feelings are always derivative from physical feelings.7 This principle is expressed in the fourth Categoreal Obligation: «From each physical feeling there is the derivation of a purely conceptual feeling whose datum is the eternal object determinant of the definiteness of the actual entity, or the nexus, physically felt» (PR 26 / 39f.).

The essay clearly draws the battle lines: the ambitious, narrow, worldly scholars who refuse to address the large human questions and seek only fame in the modern academy versus the religiously faithful who stand by the eternal principles even at the expense of their careers.

Theologia, or our knowledge of the eternal being of God, should in principle be coextensive with what we have learned from revelation in the divine economy.

There he had discovered that the principle of limitation is necessary to explain how the underlying eternal energy became the actual occasions in this world.

Nietzsche speaks of love of fate and pronounces the eternal yes to existence; and Freud reintroduces the tragic anake into the principle of reality.

The Word is the eternal object [= Whitehead's realm of eternal objects as internally ordered] of the Father's self - expression, and the Spirit is the Immanent principle of actuality and unity in their mutual relations.