Sentences with phrase «nature of the human mind»

In particular, I shall provide an illustration that is especially relevant to the problems of identity through time and the nature of the human mind.

But I think it is the nature of the human mind to be divided — many - selves (link here).

There is something special about the world - and the nature of the human mind - which allows patterns within nature to be discerned and represented.

The sooner we realize the nature of the human mind, the sooner we will figure out peace with ourselves and peace with others.

«With their boldness, courage, and uncommon energy, this new group of Fellows, men and women of all ages in diverse fields, exemplifies the boundless nature of the human mind and spirit.»

From his ceramic sculptures that eerily resist figurative formations with their oozing, amorphic shapes to his multilayered mixed media paintings, Ruby's expansive body of work complicates already - turbulent nature of human mind.

United States About Blog This blogs contain a unique understanding of the inherently purposive nature of the human mind, and of what that means for philosophy.

Not exact matches

The Formula of Concord, which is central to the confessional documents of the Lutheran church, declares that original sin has replaced the image of God in human beings with «a deep, wicked, abominable, bottomless, inscrutable, and inexpressible corruption of his entire nature in all its powers, especially of the highest and foremost powers of the soul in mind, heart, and will.»

While it's human nature for us to stay in groups of like - minded folks, it's always important to strive beyond our instincts for comfort and security.

It is always worth keeping in mind that it is the little ones who must first pay the price of the cultural rejection of «human nature».

In the case of matter below man this is through relationship to the Mind of God that frames the whole of creation, and in the case of human nature through direct integration with the individual and personal centre of control and direction (intellect and will) that we call the «soul».

It can be shown, on the contrary, that just as the natural sciences yield a comprehensive view of man, so the picture of human nature provided by the social sciences is that of a three-fold integration of body, mind, and spirit.

Camus» adherence to this mind - matter dualism, however, leaves his rebel's discovery of a «living transcendence» that guarantees limits in nature and human behavior in perilous intellectual limbo.

Here we can see that the bourgeois mind is a version of a secularized understanding of human nature.

Since human forms of relation are evidence of mind, it might appear that the social sciences are concerned only with man's mental nature.

In short, every occupation can and should be designed to take account of the essential unity of body, mind, and spirit in human nature.

i'm an avid believer in the power of the human mind to over come most problems whether they are man vs. nature, man vs. man or man vs. the supernatural... we can conquer most obsticules placed in our path.

The facts of culture beautifully exemplify the compresence of body, mind, and spirit in human nature.

The other side of human nature, which in this life is inseparably linked with the body but without being identical with it, is variously called spirit, mind, consciousness, ego, psyche, soul, or personality.

If man was to be redeemed, human nature must be changed from within, by the total offering of aninnocent mind and will for the sake of goodness and for the good of others.

The philosopher who did most to shape this vision of the world, Rene Descartes, regarded the human mind as wholly different in nature.

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.

your understanding of the change process is very simplistic, because your mind is not open, you specifically believe already in the traditional doctrines, Dogmas as shown in thousands of years of history evolves, and the need for input variables, meaning the diversity of religious belief is necessay because nature through his will is requiring this to happen, we are being educated by God in the events of history.In the past when there was no humans yet Gods will is directly manifisted in nature, with our coming and education through history, we gradually takes the responsibilty of implementing the will.Your complaint on your perception of abuse is just part of the complex process of educating us through experience.

Charles W. Morris, in Six Theories of Mind, writes: «Whitehead's course of procedure is to give a comprehensive description of human experience and then to take this description as a key to the nature of reality» (quoted in 1:51).

The debunking frame of mind is one which, first of all, recognizes that any human choice is composed of a complex mixture of motives and pressures; such is the nature of human motivation and activity.

Then those that are left (surviving genocides and «nature») will get a clue and realize that only God has the ability to create the complexities of the human eye, circulatory system, the fact we have (had) the needed water and atmosphere was not a random perfection that just occurred... will change their minds and ask for forgiveness that was already granted them through Jesus, if they chose to accept it.

He who thinks that the world, without any such unity of significance as constitutes an experience, would still have been or might be a real world, and who deduces this from the fact — which spiritualism accepts — that the world without a particular human personality, Mr. X is perfectly possible, must also be one who thinks that if from «himself» those qualities which make him Mr. X were to be subtracted, nothing of the nature of mind would remain — in short, he is one who does not believe that other minds are members of himself.

And, if we know anything about human nature, we know we have a desire for certainty, a fear of being wrong, a tendency to difine ourselves by our beliefs and to identify those like - minded, the «us» of the them / us divide.

There is no longer serious doubt in my mind that human life exists within the womb from the very onset of pregnancy, despite the fact that the nature of the intrauterine life has been the subject of considerable dispute in the past.

The study of human minds and what they do in the world, accordingly, was separated sharply from the study of nature.

You charge me also with saying, again pleading the support of the scriptures, that though we humans have many kindly affections, love of children, love between men and women, love of country, all these too are corrupted and defiled; and that though we have very agile minds, able to penetrate into the mysteries of nature, we put this gift and attainment to ignoble uses.»

It's just common, human nature to look, as well as, normal human reflexes to look out of first curiosity, and then feel very uncomfortable and try not to look knowing consciously in your mind what is taking place.

What I have particularly in mind is that while there is much talk about taking Jesus as a key to the interpretation of human nature, as it is often phrased, or to the meaning of human life, or to the point of man's existential situation, there is a lamentable tendency to stop there and not to go on to talk about «the world» — by which Miss Emmet meant, I assume, the totality of things including physical nature; in other words the cosmos in its basic structure and its chief dynamic energy.

This presumption flatters the complacency of the modern mind, and prevents us from seeing the poverty of our current assumptions about reason, nature, and human fulfillment.

It will be shown that all three branches of knowledge have to do with all three of the traditional aspects of human nature, and that every discipline in fact studies man as a whole, comprising body, mind, and spirit.

We have to ask ourselves which of these is more probable, putting aside our preconceptions and keeping in mind what we know of human nature.

His doctrine of two separate substances, extended matter and thinking mind, each sort of substance requiring, with God bracketed out of the picture, nothing other than itself in order to exist, rather unceremoniously threw mind, that is, distinctively human being, out of nature and left philosophy with the hopeless task of trying to figure out how a mind outside of nature, a mind not of nature, could ever really come to know nature.

Conservatives cherry - pick those passages that support their conservative view of God based on their conservative ego, and vice versa, where liberals are concerned... and there is NO way to ascertain which is true, except on a wholly subjective, personal level, thus it will never be proven objectively, since Spirit, by it's very nature, has absolutely nothing at all to do with the flesh and whatever seems to be happening on this earth, because Spirit is completely opposite, and therefore invisible to the naked human eye, being of the mind only, and therefore unprovable.

The philosopher Leo Strauss said that the world — meaning cosmos or nature — is the home of the human mind, but even real guy philosophers (and in the classical world there was no difference between philosophers and scientists) are more than minds.

Out of this movement, a vision of the cosmos is emerging that is at once more purposeful, more respectful of the mysteries of nature, and more cognizant of the limitations of the human mind in attempting to comprehend it.

An objectivist view that sees the nature of reality writ large in the universe and waiting to be discovered by the human mind, that claims theories are exact replicas of reality, is typical of naive realism.

If the human mind, enlightened by the grace of God which is offered to every man, will lift its eyes a little from the earth, it will see the mighty consummation in the human nature of Christ of the whole process of living development through evolution.

God's natural order can still be grasped at by the common sense of men of good will, but the full truth and meaning of creation, the separation of the sexes and of human nature, will only ever be in part and obscurely viewed when the determined and determining purpose of the mind of God is recognised in creation, holding all things relative to Himself — and to His plan to enter creation as its Lord and King.

Ockham rejected the real existence of a human nature because he had concluded that one can only know particular individuals and that universals that can be applied to multiple individuals, such as human nature, or the essence of a dog or a tree, or properties such as white or black, square or round were only names that we create in our mind.

The new understanding of how the human mind works in creating human culture has shown more clearly the relative nature of all religious traditions.

The link between justice and ecological issues becomes especially evident in light of the dualistic, hierarchical mode of Western thought in which a superior and an inferior are correlated: male - female, white people — people of color, heterosexual - homosexual, able - bodied — physically challenged, culture - nature, mind - body, human - nonhuman.

Similarly, Charles Birch of Sydney spoke on «Creation, Technology and Human Survival» and told the Assembly that our goal must be a just and sustainable society; and this demands a fundamental change of heart and mind about humankind's relation to nature.

At the core of the environmental crisis is a great divide between mind and body, between head and heart, between human and nature.

His preaching can even be considered conservative in the sense that he dared to return to the notion of good and evil, to invoke the concept of a human nature, and to believe that God in Jesus Christ is the final arbiter of history — concepts long dismissed and derided by secular minds.

This means that all phenomena are identical in their constituent self - identity; all are in a state of constant transformation; and there are no absolute differences between human nature and the natural order, body and mind, male and female, enlightenment and ignorance.