Sentences with phrase «human perspective as»

House Speaker Brendan Sharkey of Hamden said Democratic lawmakers «remain committed to reversing most of the governor's cuts to hospitals and social services, from both a human perspective as well as the need to better recognize our health - care industry as an important driver of our economy.»

Often the choice must be construed from what appears to human perspective as a gray area, and it is precisely this, as Robert Browning pointed out in The Ring and the Book, that constitutes «life's terrible choice.»

Not exact matches

As part of the series — produced by Darren Aronofsky and narrated by superstar Will Smith — several astronauts give personal anecdotes and perspectives about the planet based on a place few humans who have actually visited outer space.

As technology advances and businesses become more globalized, creating a truly diverse organizational culture that incorporates basic human principles and fosters diversity of ideas and perspectives is not just good for employees, Webster argues.

Stanford Graduate School of Business Professor Jeffrey Pfeffer wrote in the journal, Academy of Management Perspectives, that, «Although most of the research and public pressure concerning sustainability has been focused on the effects of business and organizational activity on the physical environment, companies and their management practices profoundly affect the human and social environment as well.»

LOL: The Christian perspective is that God does indeed exist, and because of that, all human beings (including the ones who deny His very existence) are still endowed with some of the gifts He's given us — such as some capacity to reason, create, and love, though all imperfectly.

While convergence does happen in religion from the perspective of the human psyche being adapted through its self - deceptive capabilities (e.g., as a coping mechanism), we didn't land in the new world with the discovery of the same kind of scripture stemming from a singular God.

I say the new book should include the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, Psalms, Proverbs, writings from Confucious, Socrates, Plato, Epicurus, Pythagoras, Descartes, Jefferson etc so as to give a well rounded perspective of human history and beliefs.

Understanding this new perspective on church is as difficult today as it was in the days of Jesus for Jews to understand a different perspective on Sabbath, but the basic principles seem to be the same: Church, just like Sabbath, is not supposed to be a bunch of human traditions which have become legalistic laws by which to judge one another's spiritual maturity.

But what is really needed here is a shift of perspective that recognizes antagonists (on both sides) as human beings with aspirations for their children and their children's children.

As one consequence, the Whiteheadian perspective stands in fundamental opposition to what has sometimes been called «metaphysical individualism,» i.e., the theory that human individuals are self - contained in the sense that communities are created by them but not vice-versa.

Looking at society from a modern perspective, there seems to be very little reason not to maximize human happiness, as long as it hurts no one.

Therefore much mystery to be had and it being folly to think of one perspective in human rational terms as being superior to the other.

It certainly may try, and even if it hits on the truth of the matter, since the human is a Mystery unto Itself (and set within the context of Ultimate Mystery), are we not left with a great many perspectives on the matter, which might indicate that a more tentative approach may be the best way to go regarding the question of the OP, so as to make room for those who are just as caught up in the Mystery as we ourselves are?

And exactly why do humans persistently «regard themselves as the central and most significant entities in the universe» or assess reality «through an exclusively human perspective?»

There remains the question as to whether adopting the perspective that locates human beings within the whole creaturely world, albeit as the most valuable part of it, would in fact work against the interests of the poor.

How much the CES actually cares about «the most profound metaphysical questions concerning human existence and the nature of reality» within any recognisably Catholic perspective is, however, to put it as mildly as possible, perhaps in some doubt.

We are summoned in the Lutheran perspective to divine obedience and neighborly service within the framework of concrete human historical structures, as questionable and ambiguous as they always are.

They deal with evil as it needs to be dealt with» from a human rather than divine perspective.

Jennifer Roback Morse of the Acton Institute points out on their website that, in the very first paragraph of the encyclical we discover that «Benedict's perspective on Truth has its own view of human freedom as well as of the human good: «Each person finds his good by adherence to God's plan for him, -LSB-...] in this plan, he finds his truth, and through adherence to this truth he becomes free.»»

From the perspective of theology as we understand it, all human divisions, systems, social and political institutions, all philosophical thoughts, find themselves on the same level, on the side of the created world in its corruption and promise.

By contrast «deep» environmentalism — that is, deep ecology — adopts a cooperative perspective, believing that human beings are inseparable from that web of life of which they are a part, and that other members of the web are equally as valuable as humans.

John Warwick Montgomery, a lawyer and philosopher as well as theologian, provides perhaps the most comprehensive argument by a conservative in his recent book Human Rights and Human Dignity: An Apologetic for the Transcendent Perspective (Zondervan, 1986) He concludes that rights derived from the inerrant teachings of the Bible give authority to the rights set forth in the Universal Declaration, even exceeding its claims in significant ways.

The aim is to be OBJECTIVE in our viewpoints and truths and accept as a fact that we can only achieve this with a much higher perspective and a much greater responsibility then most of the humans on this planet are unwilling and incapable of accepting.

I consider this an ambiguous gift: on the one hand, postmodern tendencies open up spaces for the new perspectives and voices mentioned above; on the other hand, as the social critic Jane Flax notes, a hard - core kind of postmodernity which would postulate the death of history, of the human being and of metaphysics undermines the kind of critical reason that is necessary to counter the «master narrative» constituted by capitalist globalization.

So we're at the place where we can say a couple - four things from the existential side of the problem of evil: [1] from the perspective that pain exists, and we perceive it, we as human beings (you could say «people») have an urge to do something about it when we see it.

Viewed from the perspective of human development — the most important perspective — unpaid work in the home or with children is as important for a flourishing society as investment banking at Goldman Sachs, perhaps more so.

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.

Luther's theology seeks to stay close to the perspective of the self addressed by God's words of judgment and promise; Aquinas» theology seeks to view all things as much as possible from the viewpoint of God's all - encompassing wisdom, in which the human mind is allowed to participate.

In this perspective, institutions such as education, law, and marriage are grounded in human nature and focused on shared life.

If Scully's mentor and former partner, Red Barber, was the soft - spoken, southern - accented master of the homely analogy — «This game is tighter than a new pair of shoes on a rainy day» — Scully brings to his work the perspective of a philosopher at ease with the human condition, perhaps first formed by the liberal arts education he received at Fordham University shortly after World War II: «Andre Dawson has a bruised knee and is listed as day - to - day.

Some of these criticisms are misdirected inasmuch as the perspective is intended to be more a metatheory of human nature than a set of testable hypotheses.

In the philosophic tradition it is the idealists rather than the naturalists who have made the fullest place for this insight into the essentially social character of human existence, though contemporary naturalism as in Mead, Dewey, and Wieman has achieved a similar perspective.

This means that, on Holloway's perspective, they also flow out of the structure of nature and of human society as it is fulfilled in the direct and personal enfleshment of God the Son.

The readings offer four distinct perspectives on the nature and attainment of happiness, each of which will serve as the springboard for the discussion of a different set of issues in relation to the search for human ful llment: participation in public life, self - control and education, the longing for God, and the confrontation of death.

But with them there is no question of doing justice to human being as a part of nature — as Heidegger articulates the point, from their perspective human beings are «thrown» into an alien world.

However, with this perspective on the book of Job, I am now viewing the book as a paradigm for human history.

By «perspective» I mean the realization that things will never be perfect In this world, that the ultimate good is unobtainable, that there is no such thing as a human cause or human institution without error and sinfulness, that only God deserves our ultimate loyalty.

The recognition of the centrality of an evolutionary perspective means that man needs to be viewed as a biospiritual creature who requires a delicate balance of favorable environmental conditions as the necessary prerequisite to any possible flowering of his unique human capacities.

An evolutionary perspective is assumed in which human existence is seen as the outcome of a long process of development whose beginnings are lost in the distant past.

Soft just war theory is characterized by seven key components: a strongly articulated horror of war; a strong presumption against war; a skepticism about government claims; the use of just war theory as a tool for citizen discernment and prophetic critique; a pattern of trusting the efficacy of international treaties, multilateral strategies and the perspectives of global peace and human rights groups and the international press; a quite stringent application of just war criteria; and a claim of common ground with Christian pacifists.

I think of Science as searching and understanding our universe from our human worldly perspective.

Science (like Atheists) forgets they are limited by their own perspective, their literal physical position as a human being here on Earth.

Some may believe that the most reasonable response to some of what we as humans experience — for example, changed lives or unusual events — is to assume that God unilaterally intervenes at times in earthly affairs and thus conclude that any theistic perspective that does not allow for such intervention must be considered inadequate.

To put this in perspective, the Solar System is thought to be 4.5 billion years old and humans have existed as a genus for only a few million years.

The perspective taken in this book (especially in Chapter 8) is that of an evolutionary cosmology in which the universe itself is the primary revelation of mystery and in which religions and their symbols are seen as expressions of the cosmos (and not just of isolated, cosmically homeless human subjects).

He argues that the universe's origin is just as inexplicable as the origin of each unique human being: «In other words, how to interpret the Big Bang idea in the perspective of the interior life of a human person» (p. 306).

In order to get a clearer perspective on the development of the doctrine of love we must examine the main themes of love in the Old Testament, including the covenant with the Hebrews as God's act of love, the human love required in faithfulness to the covenant, and the suffering of God as a result of human sin in failing to keep the covenant.

This is not to say humans will worship Science as a Deity but rather, the understanding of the relationship between all things will be far clearer than the perspective humans have now that Science and Spirituality are two separate things.

One may express it as a further dimension in which his human character is set, or as a peculiar perspective in which that human character is seen.