Sentences with phrase «first understanding human»

His WWF talk is so packed with wisdom, and it's all about this basic principle of first understanding human behavior and the constraints we're stuck with, THEN figuring out how to work within this system to achieve realistic goals.

Not exact matches

Systems are very important, however, the first thing we would do when taking over a business would be to understand its Human Capital - we need to know what type of people we have in the organization.

The human brain and natural intelligence are far from being understood, and without that fundamental knowledge coming first, it will likely be impossible to create a truly thinking machine, they say.

But understanding the reasons behind the human need to avoid fault and feel validated is only the first step in reversing the credit - and - blame cycle.

First, managers must have a basic understanding of human behavior, and how experiencing positive emotions is at the root of human motivation — we are wired for it.

No one gets it, at first; for what has happened bursts the previous limits of human understanding.

[3] First, she inaugurates not only a profound understanding of the human but an entirely new way of being human.

Since those process categories have been connected with ideas of God inspired by the Bible, process theologians believe there is a chance in the twenty - first century to bring the long separated parts of human understanding into a new, coherent relationship.

I agree with this evaluation of her contemporary relevance: «Her ideas and understanding of the human person are as alive and fresh today as they were when she first shared them through her writings.»

... The family understood in this way remains the first and principal building block of society and of an economy on a human scale.

Facts are a first and last resort in a court of law, but when it comes to human relationships, let us first stop and feel before we go to facts.The communication pyramid offers a revolutionary paradigm in our journey to understanding.

First, human beings are understood, for purposes of economics, to aim at the acquisition of the goods and services they desire for as little labor as requisite.

First, it must again be stressed that the eschatological message of Jesus, the preaching of the coming of the Kingdom and of the call to repentance, can be understood only when one considers the conception of man which in the last analysis underlies it, and when one remembers that it can have meaning only for him who is ready to question the habitual human self - interpretation and to measure it by this opposed interpretation of human existence.

First one must understand two senses in which «human act» can be intended.

Taking note of the altered world - consciousness of human beings in this century, according to which Being is to be understood in strictly interpersonal terms, Mühlen suggests, first of all, that the classical expression homoousios, as applied to the Son's relationship to the Father, does not necessarily mean that the Son is of the same substance as the Father but only that he is of equal being (gleichseiendlich) with the Father (VG 13).

The primary biblical foundation for understanding family living as caring for the generations is in God's call to human beings in the first chapter of Genesis «to exercise care over the earth and hold it in its proper place.»

I shall not endorse Royce's own conception of the Trinity in this book, since it is more Sabellian or modalistic than genuinely Trinitarian.3 Rather, my intention is first to summarize Royce's understanding of human community, then to make clear how it corresponds to a democratically organized structured society within a Whiteheadian perspective, and finally to apply this understanding of community to the Trinity in order to clarify the notion of God as a community of divine persons.

If all we can say of Jesus and of God is that Jesus is God — all the God of God there is — then we have effectively ruled out all other attempts of the human spirit to glimpse the mystery of the ultimate; and this is all the more conspicuously the case when our understanding of «Jesus,» in the first place, is really a dogmatic reduction of his person, his «thou - ness,» to the «it - ness» of christological propositions that, most of them, enshrine little more than our own religious bid for authority.

Once I realized that humans were literally created to be part of community (first God, then each other), I understood that social media platforms like Facebook are a valuable tool.

The First Good, when it is understood as fulfillment of a natural potential, seems adequately suggested in the word «self» — hence my own preference for «self - perfection» as the nontheological version of this human fulfillment.

The difference between I - it and I - Thou is not carried over from the German to the English in translation, but the difference is important in indicating the two stages of Buber's insight into man — first, that he is to be understood, in general, in terms of his relationships rather than taken in himself; second, that he is to be understood specifically in terms of that direct, mutual relation that makes him human.

These assumptions, which have their origins in a theologically motivated rejection of a classical understanding of God and creation, lead by an easy path to the view that human beings fully realize themselves by producing concepts that give us mastery over limitless possibilities — first mastery over nature, then over ourselves.

In other words, the sacrifice that saves the world is first of all a kind of commerce between the human and the divine, something the Hindu understands as well as the Christian.

First Christianity goes ahead and establishes sin so securely as a position that the human understanding never can comprehend it; and then it is the same Christian doctrine which in turn undertakes to do away with this position so completely that the human understanding never can comprehend it.

Lilla appears to understand the unpredictable nature of free human action when he reminds us that «the first identity movement in American politics was the Ku Klux Klan.»

The claim of Christian belief is not first and foremost that it offers the only accurate system of thought, as against all other competitors; it is that, by standing in the place of Christ, it is possible to live in such intimacy with God that no fear or failure can ever break God's commitment to us, and to live in such a degree of mutual gift and understanding that no human conflict or division need bring us to uncontrollable violence and mutual damage.

There is no danger, therefore, that evolution if it is understood in a truly metaphysical and theologically correct way, will teach us to think less of the first human being than was thought in earlier ages.

If such talk is construed objectively, as asserting that God is in some way the object of human experience, the fact that «God» must be understood to express a nonempirical concept means that no empirical evidence can possibly be relevant to the question of whether the concept applies and that, therefore, God must be experienced directly rather than merely indirectly through first experiencing something else.

Human beings can not understand abstract, invisible realities without first learning visible, concrete references.

Feuerbach, for example, was one of the first to understand the positive value of religion in society, even when religion is understood as a human creation and expressed in naturalistic terms.

Understanding, discovery, invention... From the first awakening of his reflective consciousness, Man has been possessed by the demon of discovery; but until a very recent epoch this profound need remained latent, diffused and unorganized in the human mass.

First we can understand that in order that the Jesus Christ of faith should not have been distrusted, rejected and betrayed, it would have been necessary for us human beings to be wholly different from what we are.

New Testament theology is thus disqualified from playing a constructive role in the forming of a theological method which shall take seriously the problem of faith and history, and particularly this faith, rooted as no other religious faith is, in the very concreteness of history, and becomes nothing more than»... the first permanent expression of the distinctively Christian consciousness, and begs the question of the external history of that consciousness» (Ibid., 57, 58) «thus leaving... theology with nothing to discussion except the human need for self - understanding in general.»

It is when Bultmann speaks of the understanding of human life that our suspicions are first aroused, especially when we know what a prominent part this conception plays in Bultmann's thought.

As the race of men grows in understanding, a substitute is made for human sacrifice; the first fruits of the earth, the first - born of the flock, are offered instead.

The corrective is to be found in the New Testament experience; what emerged in the first century world was a profoundly revolutionary community, rooted in a new understanding of history and of human purpose.

The Holy Father set in motion these past two years of contention and, one hopes, constructive dialogue in the Church because he knows that marriage and the family are in deep trouble throughout the world, just as he knows that marriage, rightly understood, and the family, rightly understood, are the basic building blocks of a humane society: the family is the first school of freedom, because it is there that we first learn that freedom is not mere willfulness; marriage, for its part, is the lifelong school in which we learn the full, challenging meaning of the law of self - giving built into the human heart.

The relation of love to the intellect proceeds from three assumption: first, that faith transcends rational categories through God's self - revelation in Christ; second, that intellectual understanding is necessary for the guidance of human life; and third, that both seek the same object in God's being and His revealed truth — namely, that it is through agape with its consequent repentance, humility, and understanding of human limits that the intellect can appropriately function.

first of all, God is unique and can not be compare to anything in this universe, but one can look at the creation of God to understand God, nothing in this world goes without rules and laws, from atom to the expending universe, and human are not exempted from this.

To speak so does, I think, demand a high measure of participation in its story, and an effort to understand it first in its own terms — to grasp the Old Testament's own fundamental assertion that its story from beginning to end is the account of the historical action of God seeking the reconciliation of man and God, the human and the divine, the creature and the Creator.

So once again... if you deny that you engage in this basic human practice of accusing, condemning, and scapegoating others... if you think that the people you call «monsters» and «heretics» truly are guilty of everything you accuse them of... if you think that some people truly deserve to burn in hell for all eternity... if you think that war is righteous and good and we need to bomb some groups of evil people off the face of the planet... then you are calling God a liar, and you have not understood the first thing about God and what He taught through Jesus (cf. 1 John 4:7 - 11).

The first remarks will be directed toward the space of the manifestation of things, the second toward that understanding of themselves that humans gain when they allow themselves to be governed by what is manifested and said.

«Catholic politicians should build new coalitions in support of protecting innocent human life: Coalitions, first and foremost, with American women» the majority of whom are pro-life» who understand that Roe's abortion license has encouraged irresponsible male sexual behavior more than any other legal act in our history.

G - D, this volcano you speak of probably just needs a human sacrifice to calm it, you know like the barbarians of old used to do when they did not understand something, or maybe offer up your first born son to your invisible man in the sky, blood always seems to calm him down, it may ease your «righteous» anger as well.

In this cross-disciplinary conversation I turn first to what is known about the brain, then to what we understand about belief, and finally, on the basis of that convergence of ideas, to an examination of the cultural symbol - images of Byzantine and medieval architecture, which express both cognitive and cosmic ways of understanding human life.

The specifically historical character of human existence may itself be understood as the first fruits of the divine promise of an ever - new future.

They are, first, the development of the student's emotional, intellectual, social, and professional life; second, knowledge and understanding of human behavior in breadth and depth; and third, the ability to relate to others therapeutically through an understanding of psychotherapeutic approaches and processes.

It is for this reason that I consider it the first and primal act of ethical and theological consideration what the well - known theologian of the «phenomenon of man», Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, refers to as the responsibility of «seeing», of being able to «understand» the «phenomenon» and the «facts» of history and human development that are taking place within the wider spectrum of the movement of the human spirit to move beyond where it currently stands into a different and perhaps higher level of its manifestation.

You said, «However, anyone with enough mathematical knowledge would find it perfectly acceptable, and understand that the «first principles» from which the proof was derived ultimately rest on human intuition.»

So when it comes to seeking the ultimate Mind, the first and final cause of everything, we can not expect simply tofit the answer inside our heads and grasp ultimate Reality with natural human reasoning, let alone within purely material categories of understanding.