Sentences with phrase «known as the philosophy»

This more general science is traditionally known as the philosophy of nature.

@Jimbeam that story was not credible.Ut was made up.Also your questions have are not even in line with what am saying.You are asling this and that and bla bla bla.It was needless.Everybody who is here wants Arsenal to achieve success regardless of whether we have average players or not because that's what we as fans do.The thing I was trying to say is that the same people who here who are nagging and crying are the same people who claimed to have lowered their expectations for the transfer window.So why all this talk.Listen I'll even want Arsenal to even have a world class eleven and when we don't win the cup with that world class eleven i wonder who'll be blamed after that.The critical thinkers here will tell you the main thing worrying this club is not even about the players.It's all summed up in one word known as philosophy.

It's generally known as Philosophy but rarely practiced or used well..

Not exact matches

«Crafting a philosophy statement, or identity, becomes helpful when the «bumper cars» no longer bump into each other» as may happen in larger firms.

His guiding philosophy is known as The Process, a way of breaking down a difficult situation into manageable pieces.

(Says a former high - level company executive of Mike, as he's known inside Bloomberg and as we'll refer to him to avoid confusion: «Mike's management philosophy is five cats in a bag fighting.»)

In a world where most would rather be known as a leader than a manager, there's a lesson to be learned from Ma's philosophy.

If you sense that technology may be starting to get the better of you, a crucial first step to regaining technology control is to adopt what's known as a JOMO philosophy, in other words the «Joy of Missing Out».

Under ROWE, as the program has come to be known, a corporate philosophy that equated success at work with long hours at the office would be scrapped in favour of a more flexible workplace.

I'm sure the company is delighted that their 20 percent philosophy has become so well known and so readily accepted as reality.

After all, he probably would not accept them from a priest known to espouse a more liberal philosophy than his, especially as that person would probably not be a «Real American» in his and Sarah's eyes.

We concede that not all who doubt the existence of a personal God do so because they accept the theory of evolution, whether the word be restricted to biology or enlarged to its cosmic significance, but we do say, and from experience know, that most modern agnosticism is bound up with those non-theistic philosophies of evolution that stream off from Hegel as their modern fountain - head.

With the philosophy of Rene Descartes (1596 - 1650), the nature of reality was no longer seen as writ large over the universe only to be discovered by the exercise of reason but rather was what the human mind perceived, interpreted, made it to be («Cogito, ergo sum.

This is strikingly illustrated by the fact that when the Renaissance initiated a revival of Platonism, some Christian scholars, known as the Cambridge Platonists, urged the return of Christian theology to «its old loving nurse, the Platonic philosophy».

Part of the difficulties of Cartesian philosophy, and of any philosophy which accepts [presentational immediacy] as a complete account of perception, is to explain how we know more than this meager fact about the world although our only avenue of direct knowledge limits us to this barren residuum.

It is Polanyi's theory of tacit knowing, therefore, I believe, which can start us on the right path, coalescing as it does with the existential - phenomenological approach of Merleau - Ponty, and it may be, in large part at least, something not unlike the philosophy of Process and Reality that will emerge.2

I've read the book many times as a student of philosophy and psychology and know that those of you who insist that it's false cover - to - cover are FOS.

The message of this book is that democratic life should be conceived not as an enterprise of autonomous men, no matter how clever they may be in organizing to pursue their interests, but as a way of realizing the Will of Heaven — that is, of doing the truth and serving the right in which man's proper being and destiny consist, This is another manner of signifying the «public philosophy» earlier mentioned.

Whitehead, another mathematician - physicist - philosopher, had a similar view Thus our theological scheme is no longer as seriously at odds with science or the philosophy of science as it was in the days of classical or Newtonian physics.

Brightman was as intellectually honest as any philosopher I know of, and the following expression of his uncertainty seems to suggest that he knows Hartshorne has raised issues his philosophy can not handle:

Hocking, William Ernest, «Whitehead as I Knew Him,» Alfred North Whitehead: Essays on His Philosophy, ed.

I don't hear any solcialists / Communists apologizing for Stalin's MASS MURDERS, no they continue to try to push it as a philosophy.

As a careful student of the history of philosophy and ideas, he knew that the great flowering of scientific thought in the seventeenth century had not only Greek roots, but medieval ones.

Philosophy does not exist, however, without the readiness of the philosophizing man to make decisions, on the basis of known truth, as to whether a thought is right or wrong, an action good or bad.

If one asks how the subject knows the object, one has in brief form the essence of theory of knowledge from Plato to Bergson; the differences between the many schools of philosophy can all be understood as variations on this theme.

One discussion of his ideas lists thirty - six reviews of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in journals whose fields range from philosophy and science to psychology and sociology.16 Many scientists feel at home in the volume because it gives frequent concrete examples from the history of science and seems to describe science as they know it.

There is no answer as to what actually happened, but we do know that starting from there the church embarked on the far - reaching intellectual enterprise which is the building of a Christian theology, and philosophy of life, upon the foundation thus laid, and that is an unfinished story.

Strauss must know that this strategy is quixotic, since as soon as he says we must be open to the excellence of philosophy and to the obedience of the pious, he has made it impossible not to wonder how these dispositions can be integrated, or at least held together in the same soul.

The Faith Suggestion In our May 2008 editorial (as in our current editorial) we acknowledged the need to take account, within philosophy of religion, of modernity's «turn to the subject» whilst maintaining confidence in the human subject's ability to know reality (i.e. «realism»).

As we all know, in philosophy departments the company of speculative metaphysicians is a small one.

But believing in the Bible as a fact of the Universe is a good sign that the person doesn't know much of history, comparative religion, philosophy or science in general.

If you properly engage in this work, you will be interested in arriving at a position on whatever it is that interests you (philosophy, critical theory, history, philology, literary criticism, or whatever) that is preferable to any other that you know of on that question, and you will concomitantly want to be clear as to what the position that you construct and defend is, what it excludes, how best to show that its competitors are less adequate than the one you want to defend, and in what sense this is true.

Such a concession could be exploited by promoters of rival sources of knowledge, such as philosophy and religion, who would be quick to point out that faith in naturalism is no more «scientific» (i.e., empirically based) than any other kind of faith.

After the apparent dissolution of normal empirical and relational thought at the hands of F. H. Bradley, and the apparent paradox (as Russell himself complained) that it was now impossible to know anything without first knowing everything, «simplemindedness» must have seemed the only antidote possible for philosophy.

If, as I suggested in the last section, the obvious and oft - noted differences between Russell and Whitehead symbolize the current analytic - speculative split, then the kinds of similarities and (perhaps even more importantly) the areas of mutual influence, indebtedness, and philosophic enrichment to which Professor Kuntz rightly points can suggest to contemporary philosophers a neutral «dialogical territory» beyond the present, hostile philosophic «demilitarized zone,» which is no longer itself viable, interesting, or worthy of the vocation of philosophy.

Descartes himself acknowledged that his cogito ergo sum is already fundamental in Augustine's philosophy (letter to Colvius, 14 November, 1640), and he believed that his philosophy was the first to demonstrate the philosophical truth of the doctrine of transubstantiation, and could go so far as to claim that scholastic philosophy would have been rejected as clashing with faith if his philosophy had been known first (letter to Mersenne, 31 March, 1641) Indeed, nothing is more revolutionary in modern philosophy than its dissolution of the scholastic distinction between natural theology and revealed theology.

It is well known that Hegel could conclude his lectures on the philosophy of history by speaking of the last stage of history as our own world and our own time, but it is not well known that this apocalyptic ground is absolutely fundamental to his two most ultimate works, the Phenomenology of Spirit and the Science of Logic.

It is well - known that in scholastic philosophy the precise meaning of the concept of concursus (as physical and immediate) is disputed.

The «Speakeasy» programme in use in many organizations such as Sure Start also promote «family planning» according to the philosophy of Brook and fpa (formerly known as the Family Planning Association).

This discovery is being made simultaneously by a science, a philosophy and a theology as yet little known.

Further explanation of Hegel's attractiveness to the theologian can be found in the high estimation he has of the role of (Christian) religion,» the way in which his philosophy of history can be read as a speculative transformation of salvation history, 12 and his «high» anthropology in which human beings are moments in the self - knowing of God.»

As a way of both documenting and deepening our sense of this decisive shift in the current climate of opinion, I shall consider briefly two very influential books that appeared within four years of one another, Richard Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979) and Parker Palmer's To Know As We Are Known (1983).

This avowal of the absolute can no longer be Kantian (nor no doubt Plotinian), for Kantian philosophy would incline us to look only for examples or symbols, not for testimonies, understood as accounts of an experience of the absolute.

I have myself always felt closer to theistic Hinduism and the teachings of Ramanuja (11th or 12th century), who founded the school of philosophy known as Visistadvaita or qualified non-dualism.

While Chicago no longer exists as a center of process thought and is to a lesser extent than before identified with philosophy - theology dialogue and interaction, it leaves a legacy worthy of study by anyone interested in the history of these modes of inquiry in American religious thought.

Religious Language was under scrutiny from a school of philosophy known as «Linguistic Analysis».

On a more metaphysically fundamental level, Whitehead's «philosophy of organism also regards knowing as a special case of the «bipolar» nature of all becoming, whereby the direct «physical» response to objective reality is partially transformed by «mental» functioning in the realization of a novel subjective experience.

Gil you have asked some very good questions why does bad things happen in the world i personally do nt know God did nt explain to Job either why he had to suffer.What i do know is that God desires that none of us should perish but that all would have eternal life in him through Jesus Christ.This world will one day pass away and the real world will be reborn so our focus as christians is on whats to come and being a witness in the here and now.Both good and bad happens to either the righteous or the sinner so what are we to make of that.What we do know is that God will set all things right at the appointed time the wicked will be judged and the righteous will be rewarded for there faith isnt that enough reason for us to believe.Free will is only a reality if we can choose between good and bad but our hearts are deceitfully wicked we naturally are inclined toward sin that is another reason whyt we need to be saved from ourselves so what are we to do.For me Christ died and rose again that is a fact witnessed by over 500 people that were alive at the time and was recorded by historians how many other religious leaders do you know that did that or did the miracles that Jesus did.As far as the bible is concerned much of the archelogical evidence has proven to be correct and many of prophetic words spoken many hundreds of years ago have come to pass including both the birth and the death of Jesus.Interested in what philosophy you are believing in if other than a faith in Jesus Christ so how does that philosophy give you the assurance that you are saved.Its really simple with christianity we just have to believe in Jesus Christ.brentnz

Students of seventeenth century British natural philosophy know that Locke was one of many in his day who saw their task as continuous with the efforts of «natural philosophers» — their scientific colleagues.

Earlier, and until about two centuries ago, there had been a main field of inquiry known as philosophia naturalis, the philosophy of nature.