They are deep observations into
the fundamental nature of man.
Not exact matches
He often turns to the church, especially if encouraged to do so, to explore
fundamental questions related to the
nature and destiny
of man and his ever - present existential anxiety and guilt.
To the Christian, such an atheistic approach to human
nature is essentially inhuman, since
men do not exist without a
fundamental religious vocation any more than they exist in this life without physical needs, individuality or communities, all aspects
of the human condition eagerly studied by social scientists.
When, for example, at first in the 19th century down to Pius XII the Church adopted a very reserved attitude to any inclusion
of the human bios in the idea
of evolution, that was motivated, and rightly so, by a
fundamental conception
of the
nature of man which for good reasons required to be defended.
Human
nature, in the sense
of man's basic physical, emotional, impulsive and intellectual constitution, somehow moral at the core, seemed plainly more
fundamental than any particular sort
of human behavior, even economic; and human
nature itself emerges in a world order far more ancient and more
fundamental still.
[25] It is only right and fitting that in this process greater time and attention be paid to
fundamental principles
of the
nature of God and the meaning
of creation and
man, particularly with the advent
of sin.
My approach is to present a Whiteheadian view
of three
fundamental parts
of any philosophy
of religion: the
nature of the world, the
nature of God and the
nature of man.
Since the instinct
of ownership is
fundamental in
man's
nature, this is one more example
of the ascetic paradox.
We today stand in need
of a new conception
of nature, for this is indispensable to the conception by
man of himself and his place in the universe, a conception
of fundamental importance to every sphere
of man's life and activity.
It seems, moreover, that the most satisfactory philosophy for the masses
of humanity will be the one that affords the most adequate, comprehensive, and convincing answers to these four
fundamental questions concerning the ultimate characteristics
of being,
nature,
man, and God.
... Since
man enjoys the capacity for a free personal choice in truth... the right to religious freedom should be viewed as innate to the
fundamental dignity
of every human person... all people are «impelled by
nature and also bound by our moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth» (Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis Humanae, 2)... let me express my sincere hope that your expertise in the fields
of law, political science, sociology and economics will converge in these days to bring about fresh insights on this important question andthus bear much fruit now and into the future.
A first point seems to me to be this: to overcome [the] false idea
of man's autonomy as an «I» complete in himself, whereas the «I» is fulfilled in the encounter with the «you» and «we»... It is
fundamental to recover a true concept
of Nature as the Creation
of God that speaks to us... and also
of Revelation: recognising that the book
of Creation, in which God gives us our
fundamental orientation, is deciphered in Revelation, which is endorsed in cultural and religious history, not without mistakes, but in a substantially valid manner, to be further developed and purified anew -LSB-... fostering] openness
of the «I» to the «you», to the «we» and to the «You»
of God.
It is true that at the outset it presupposes a certain
fundamental concept
of the place
of Man in
Nature.
He talked about his busy year, what he remembers about making Children
of Men, how much he learned working with cinematographer Darius Khondji, the reason he agreed to star in Papillon after originally being apprehensive about the project, how the film explores the
fundamental nature of love, and more.
But I think religion is both scientifically and philosophically an unimportant and silly distraction from what is relevant to
man's
fundamental nature quo
man and to
nature quo
nature; it does not have essential significance at all to objectively demonstrable pursuit
of understanding.
Based on your summary she appears to support a myopically biased religious view
of man's
fundamental nature.
A
man whose inevitable demeanor and presence on the witness stand, whose
fundamental and unalterable and obvious
nature, was completely inconsistent with the main theme
of his defense lawyers — that theme being that he has a poor memory, and that he was so preoccupied with other matters that he simply forgot who told him what and when, or who he told what and when — would not take the stand.