Sentences with phrase «governing human thought»

Not exact matches

«The miracles of technology cause us to live in a hectic, clockwork world that does violence to human biology, enabling us to do nothing but pursue the future faster and faster... Specialization in verbiage, classification, and mechanized thinking has put man out of touch with many of the marvelous powers of «instinct» which govern his body.

I think the human race and society — how we govern, how we raise our kids, how we think, how we communicate — is going to fundamentally change well within the next 30 years.

Anthropology and Spanish are exotic enough for laughter, but at least government (if it is American Government) will require them to think about their own lives as allegedly self - governing human beings.

Human beings are governed by the physiological and neurological limitations that govern our perceptions and our thinking processes.

Would God not be making people think that perhaps humans can govern themselves without disastrous results?

Moreover, objectivity does not rule thought; human imagination, valuation and social location govern how we identify and classify things — and thus, how we construct contexts for comparison.

This is a universal rule governing all forms of human thought; there can be no reason why metaphysics should be an exception.

Subsequent to that statement, I have a hard time imagining an afterlife that doesn't have some version of a «god»... unless us humans created everything and all the rules that govern it — then I suppose we would be the god — but I'd think I would remember doing that.

To the extent that we are committed to the ideal of a secular society free of ecclesiastical influence and governed by toleration, liberty, and a conception of civic virtue; and insofar as we think of true religious piety as consisting in treating other human beings with dignity and respect, and regard the Bible simply as a profound work of human literature with a universal moral message, we are the heirs of Spinoza's scandalous treatise.

«I mean, obviously, governing is the vast majority of the time... I think most people who are decent human beings, in public life, would like to tell you we would like to spend zero percent of our time on fundraising.»

To what extent do you view your investing life as an extension of your personal life?By that I mean to what extent do the personal morals and ethical values of Tim the man govern the investing decisions of Tim the dividend growth investor?If you ask your typical dividend growth investor if they would be willing to invest in a lucrative but immoral venture, say selling child pornography or crack cocaine, the answer would probably be «absolutely not» regardless of the yield, valuation or growth prospects of the underlying venture.And yet, ask that same investor what their thoughts are about Phillip Morris and they would probably describe what a wonderful investment it is and go on about why you should own it.Do your personal morals ever come into play when buying companies, or do you compartmentalize your conscience, wall it off from the part of your brain that thinks about investments, and make your investing decisions based on the financial prospects of the company?The reason why I'm asking is that I keep identifying stocks of companies that I love from an investing perspective but despise on a human level.I can not in good conscience own any piece of Phillip Morris knowing the impact that smoking related illness has on the families of smokers.You might say that the smoker made his choice to smoke so you don't mind taking his money, but his children never made that choice and they are the ones who will suffer when he dies 20 years too soon.

The amount of an instrument (equity, future, option commodity etc.) that they can buy in one day will be governed by a number of things, most notably how much cash or credit they have (they normally have more cash and cash equivalents on hand than most human beings will see in their life), how much they can afford to move the market price (including how fair they think the valuation is currently) and the liquidity of the market for the instrument as a whole.

The «Domestikator» was always intended to be a catalyst for thought, as it addressed the serious issue of domestication, of how humans employ technology, like artificial intelligence, genetic manipulation, robotics and industrial farming, still without much understanding, policy or regulation to govern this increasingly intrepid behaviour.

When we speak of knowledge, we immediately think of the human capacity to learn more about the reality that surrounds him and to discover the laws that govern nature and the universe.

Do you think there was some «deus ex machina» that somehow governed Co2 levels of the Earth to some «correct» temperature before humans came along???

And less and less human management and huma thinking on law — which, after all, was made to govern humans life.