Sentences with phrase «here is a distinction»

They work in tandem, but here's the distinction: Your conscience shouts, «here's what you should do,» while your intuition whispers, «here's what you could do.»

Of particular interest to us here is the distinction of primary qualities such as mass, momentum, shape, and position from the secondary qualities (such as color, taste, sound, smell, and texture).

What is lacking here is a distinction between factual being and ideal being.

The crucial issue to keep in mind here is a distinction between how we judge and what we do.

Here are some distinctions to consider when deciding which type of dog is right for a child — or adult — who has autism:

Not exact matches

Examples of advocates of this approach abound, but here's a Business Insider post suggesting that «instead of creating neat little boxes for each area of our life,» we try to «eliminate the distinctions as much as possible.»

It's perhaps worth drawing a distinction here between bitcoin and ethereum, and the thousands of «altcoins» that have been issued so far this year.

Yes, another one; but the distinction here lies in the quality of the writers — Vanity Fair contributor McLean co-authored the classic Enron book The Smartest Guys in the Room, while Nocera is a columnist for The New York Times and a staff writer for the paper's magazine — and in the frame they choose for their history.

The distinction we are making here is between improvement by addition vs. improvement by subtraction.

This is an important distinction, because in all three autopilot cases — and I want to be careful to not blame the victims here — the users appear to have potentially misused — or perhaps even abused — the technology.

It is here that the distinction between GDP and GDI becomes important.

There are several reasons for this distinction; here are the two most - obvious.

Here, he made a distinction between good businesses and good investments - a distinction that still seems to be unclear to most investors:

They make a distinction between centralized virtual currencies and decentralized ones (here targeting Bitcoin), «a person is a money transmitter under the regulations if he or she creates units of convertible virtual currency and sells them to a third party for real currency or its equivalent.

I would suggest that some distinctions are in order here.

One whose attributes have been foretold by prophets, so that when those distinctions are being recognized one - by - one like a line of falling dominos, those here on earth will see him for who he is.

Here it is important to note the distinction between sequentiality and linearity.

Note the distinction here between all mainliners and those who attend — it's 13 percentage points, meaning that involvement is a pivotal predictor of belief among them.

There is a distinction here of a potential time that becoming creates, and a container time over which the becoming occurs.

There are several useful distinctions here.

Perhaps the quickest way to encapsulate that difference is as follows: while Process and Reality represents a systematic cosmology, Difference and Repetition develops a speculative «chaosmology» At its most simplistic, the distinction in play here is that between a cosmos in which order is imposed upon a primordial chaos «from outside,» or transcendently, (as when Form is imposed upon matter by the Platonic demiurge, or harmony established a priori by the Leibnizean deity), and a chaosmos in which order is generated «from within,» by a wholly immanent process of self - organization.

For here is one basic distinction that can be drawn between various theologies of play.

However in this case it is Bultmann who sees no such distinction, but rather understands Jesus to be here existentially as radical as Paul.

Here it is necessary, of course, to make a distinction between the later developed creeds — and above all, the various «confessions of faith» of the Reformation period — and the Apostles» Creed.

The tradition in question here was a matter of the distinction between clean and unclean, which is prominent both in the Old Testament and in the oral law.

The distinction here between liberals and conservatives is usually a matter of degree, but the degree is important.

p. 27) Here the distinction between the two kinds of violence is based on what is held to be the need of «ungluing» economics and society (in «stages,» as laid down by W. W. Rostov).

The proper distinction here is not individual v. state, but the state v. intermediary institutions.

Here a distinction is made between the vita spiritualis and the Liturgiae òparticipatio as one of its parts.

Here then is the crucial distinction between the New Testament and existentialism, between the Christian faith and the natural understanding of Being.

Still, the case against teleological ethics may here offer this response: Granting the difference between direct and indirect applications, this yields only the familiar distinction between «act - teleology» and «rule - teleology, «3 is problematic for the following reason: Social practices or patterns of social cooperation can not be validated teleologically without a comparative assessment of the good and evil consequences differing possible systems of rules or norms (for instance, differing sets of rights) are likely, if adopted, to produce.

I could be wrong here, but... I'm guessing that @Jaime is making finer distinctions here that you «may» be missing.

There is here an implicit distinction between the apparent self - interest of the slaveholder and the real self - interest of the slaveholder which allowed Douglass to maintain that it was genuinely in the best interest of the slaveholder that slavery be abolished.

It is here, then, that we must make some important distinctions in regard to notions that have clouded evangelical attempts to deal with the problem of justice.

I may agree with you there to some degree, but I do think 1 Cor 15 makes a definite distinction), as the means of Justification salvation (I would quantify belief here, as the agreement of the fact of Jesus death for ones own personal sins (Understanding one is a sinner and needs a savior) on the cross, That he was buried, and was raised to life on the third day).

My purpose here is to clarify that distinction and then to evaluate criticisms of the Pledge when the distinction between the two types of marriage is properly understood.

It is important here to bear in mind the distinction between the trans - historical (omnitemporal) and the ahistorical (timeless).

If I am right about the distinction for which I am feeling here, then although the enduring influence of his mind - set is more or less ensured since he became pope, his writings might slip from view.

The quite fundamental issue and that which specially concerns us here — for it is that which Professor Buchler's discussion has brought to the fore — is the problem of the basis upon which a distinction into «kinds» or «types» of «entities» or «existence» is made at all.

Here Jesus» message, in distinction from that of John, was not «Be good or get chopped down!»

Kierkegaard's The Concept of Anxiety is helpful here in the distinction it draws between angst before the good (e.g. Naziism) and angst before the evil (e.g. Stalinism)(1980, 113 - 24).

We are not concerned here to consider the eventual result of this Pauline and early Christian interpretation of Jesus — the development of the doctrine of the triunity of God, with distinctions made between the eternal Father, the Word (or Son) as the «outgoing» of God in creation and redemption, and the Holy Spirit somewhat uncertainly added to round out the three-fold pattern in unity.

There is also an interesting subject / object distinction engaged here.

What I have in mind here, though, is not the seemingly inevitable progression toward ever more complex cultural distinctions that has fascinated modernization theorists.

The distinction that is being argued here is a complex one.

The distinction here is fundamentally of the same order as the other distinctions mentioned, but it has played a much larger role in Christian self - understanding than have the parallel distinctions elsewhere.

Further distinctions of this type can be made but they are not needed here.

This baloney about how it's necessary to get «accurate census data» being a reason to make a distinction between same - s # x and straight marriage is one of the dumbest pieces of crap I've read here in a long time - and that's really saying somethings necessary to get «accurate census data» being a reason to make a distinction between same - s # x and straight marriage is one of the dumbest pieces of crap I've read here in a long time - and that's really saying somethings really saying something.

Only one distinction among possible aims is sufficiently important to require statement here.

Of utterly key importance here is that we understand Whitehead» s distinction between the «physical» and the «mental» poles of an occasion.