Sentences with phrase «meaning by objects»

It is subjects that depend on objects, meaning by objects simply what are given to subjects.

Not exact matches

That means the progressive denizens of This Town can't get distracted by the shiny object that is our ideological champion (who, it should be mentioned, hasn't visited Iowa once this campaign cycle, has repeatedly stated she will not run for President in 2016, and signed a letter encouraging Clinton to run) primarying the presumptive nominee.

Its object is to make broader health insurance coverage available to women and, by that means, both to improve women's health and to eliminate disparities between men and women in the cost of health care.

Yet critics have frequently objected to the transformation of Cheever's characters by means of midnight cloudbursts or the beaming of light into a dark place.

By approbation is meant that when Muhammad saw something done, or heard words uttered in his presence and did not object, such actions or words are approved.

Stengers rightly objects to the classification of Deleuze as a «post-structuralist,» on the grounds that this heading is an American importation of no interest for the French who were reading Deleuze since before 1968, and who recognized him as a «master,» meaning deserving of a heading by himself.

He means that these objects are not intentional types or essences, but are class concepts expressed by means of mathematical functions.

Aristotle means that in perception the individual form is actualized in the mind of the perceiver and in the object as perceived, and that the universal is then potentially reachable by application of the actualized form to other similar particulars.

In order to interpret this core - principle of revelation, we must understand its essential presupposition; namely, that events are present «in» other events - present not just abstractly (through «eternal objects»), i.e., mediated by the «general,» but as singular events that effect their further history by their unique concreteness (PR 338).12 Whitehead recognizes precisely this constellation when he says:» [T] he truism that we can only conceive in terms of universals has been stretched to mean that we can only feel in terms of universals.

By the repetition, or causal objectification, of an earlier occasion in a later one, let me hasten to add, Whitehead did not mean, as so many of his interpreters have erroneously taken him to mean, merely that some eternal object ingressed in the earlier occasion is also ingressed in the later occasion.

This means that for Whitehead perception is not mediated by internal representatives of its ultimate objects but is directly of those ultimate objects themselves.

For that matter, Dei Filius asserted that God is the «Lord of the Sciences,» that faith and reason have distinct yet mutually supportive objects and ends, and that the «assent of faith is by no means a blind movement of the mind.»

In particular, they may be interrelated indirectly by means of their conceptual feelings of one and the same eternal object.

In contrast, in the putative S - O - T nexus, S and T are interrelated indirectly by means of their conceptual feelings of an eternal object.

Those past states of my body were causally affected by the physical object (e.g., by means of light waves).10

the eliminativist could enlarge the above interpretation of the fourteenth category of explanation as follows: A nexus is a set of actual entities that are linked together by means of an eternal object, the relation of prehension.

They are nexus of actual entities that are ordered by means of a «defining characteristic» (i.e., an eternal object).

In the second place, Whitehead's panexperientialism, combined with his doctrine of eternal objects, shows how we can speak meaningfully of the correspondence between an idea, in the sense of a proposition (the meaning expressed or elicited by a linguistic sentence), and a nexus of actualities.

For when Santayana explains what it is for an essence to be exemplified, or for a truth to be about something, he typically talks of their instances or objects as «facts,» meaning by this some particular bit of the natural world as it is at a specific time and place (as it is directly if physical or derivatively if mental).

That created object clearly occurred through artificial means, whereas we procreate in a natural fashion as dictated by our biology.

To begin with, I think we must admit that when Whitehead speaks of the subject being constituted of its objects and the cause passing into the effect, he means, at least in part, that the objects / causes are reproduced by way of likeness insofar as the subject / effect assumes the same forms.

The images are not «objects» at, all, but simply means by which we perceive objects.

If the basic purpose of the study of man is defined by the image of man as the creature who becomes what only he can become through confronting reality with his whole being, then the specific branches of that study must also include an understanding of man in this way, and this means not only as an object, but also, to begin with, as a Thou.

«Because God has chosen war as one means by which He judges the nations, Christians are best advised not to take a stand opposing and objecting to all wars.

When people live by the principle of want - satisfaction, they will employ any available means for acquiring the wanted objects.

Now if it could be shown that Whitehead means the same thing by «event» that he means by «enduring object,» then Cobb would have his point, but (a) there are no grounds I can find at all to ground such an equivalence, and (b) quite to the contrary, «events» can be, though they need not be, spatially extended.

If you really object to or are offended by it then by all means make fun of people for blessing some I - beams.

By «object» here I do not mean a mere thing in contrast to a person, but rather an intentional or epistemological object, which can be either personal or impersonal.

If you really object to, are offended by, or simply think it's stupid then by all means make fun of people for blessing some I - beams.

Rather, we actually perceive the former by means of the mediating function of the latter (the «relational character of eternal objects»).

The object is not venerated; Beauty is, by means of the resemblance mysteriously conveyed by the icon.

This entire relationship is born and lives by means of the common interest in the object of study.

I have read and heard some visionaries talk about how you can know what you are meant to do by asking yourself the question, «If money were no object, and failure was impossible, what would you do?»

By means of this creativity, the occasion achieves further determination of aim resulting in a final definite eternal object.

Whitehead's insistence upon the organismic connectedness of things is certainly conducive to answering this question by means of analogy and metaphor, mapping in isomorphic fashion characteristics of the actual occasion onto the macrocosmic objects of human experience.

Thus we experience precisely in freedom what is meant by God, even if we do not name or consider this ineffable, incomprehensible, infinite goal of freedom, which makes possible the distance to the object of our choice, the actual space of freedom.

Third, in our situation today, the specific requirements of these two criteria are such that no theology can be adequate unless it makes the assertion of the experience of God, by which I mean that it must assert, in some formulation or other, that the strictly ultimate reality termed «God» is the object as well as the subject of experience, and this in relation to others as well as to self.

For far from being a deviation from biblical truth, this setting of man over against the sum total of things, his subject - status and the object - status and mutual externality of things themselves, are posited in the very idea of creation and of man's position vis - a-vis nature determined by it: it is the condition of man meant in the Bible, imposed by his createdness, to be accepted, acted through... In short, there are degrees of objectification... the question is not how to devise an adequate language for theology, but how to keep its necessary inadequacy transparent for what is to be indicated by it...» Hans Jonas, Phenomenon of Life, pp. 258 - 59; cf. also Schubert Ogden's helpful discussion on «Theology and Objectivity,» Journal of Religion 45 (1965): 175 - 95; Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice - Hall, 1966), pp. 175 - 206; and Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962).

The subject - object dichotomy gives way, by means of the archaeology of the subject, to a subject - object relationship.

I don't object to the government i.e., we the collective people of American, being «charitable» if by charitable it is meant to give to those in need, the most vulnerable among us; to sustain them.

«The best view is by no means the closest view... we consciously stand back and create distance in order to look at the world, i.e., at objects as parts of the world: and also to be unembarrassed by the closeness of that which we wish only to see; to have the full liberty of our scanning attention.»

By this formidable term Kant merely meant the fact that the consciousness «I think them» must (potentially or actually) accompany all our objects.

Neither do we mean by God any lovely being easily made the object of our affection.

3 In speaking of the two basic elements as «poles,» I mean to accept the classical distinction of subject («noetic») and object («ontic») rather than any so - called dialectical analysis such as that provided by Paul Tillich in speaking of «polarities,» (Systematic Theology, vol.

As a first approximation, we may say that the poetic function points to the obliterating of the ordinary referential function, at least if we identify it with the capacity to describe familiar objects of perception or the objects which science alone determines by means of its standards of measurement.

If by the latter we mean the description of familiar objects of perception or of the objects which science defines by its methods of observation and measurement, then the reference of poetic language projects «ahead» of itself a world in which the reader is invited to dwell, thus finding a more authentic situation in being.

We can never look directly at them, for they are bodiless and featureless and footless, but we grasp all other things by their means, and in handling the real world we should be stricken with helplessness in just so far forth as we might lose these mental objects, these adjectives and adverbs and predicates and heads of classification and conception.

But to these three traits the poetic function adds a split reference by means of which emerges the Atlantis submerged in the network of objects submitted to the domination of our preoccupations.

It is important to make it abundantly clear at this point that the crucial problem is the spiritual problem, and we here mean by spiritual that area which is the object of attention in philosophy and theology as against that area in which the object of attention is mechanical contrivance.

By «realization» in this passage Whitehead is often read as meaning «ingression»: no pattern as a particular manner of relatedness can obtain without the simultaneous ingression of other eternal objects (sensa) that constitute its matter: «The realization of a pattern is through the realization of this contrast,»