Sentences with phrase «nature of the realities which»

While most people do not recognize it, they also have a view of the nature of reality which undergirds and shapes these other notions.

Not exact matches

Not that I would dream of rehearsing the controversy again; but I will note that, at the time, I took my general point to be not that natural - law theory is inherently futile, but rather that its proponents often fail to grasp just how nihilistic the late modern view of reality has become, or how far our culture has gone toward losing any coherent sense of «nature» at all, let alone of any realm of moral meanings to which nature might afford access.

Contact with reality» which is to say, the actual operation of the legal system and its impact on society» is more likely to confront academics with the immutable truths of human nature than endless theorizing restrained only by the politically correct predilections of one's colleagues.

God can not possess that attribute unless the fundamental nature of reality itself is such that it permits a consistent distinction between that which is a person, and that which is not.

(Romans 8:22,23) The bloody horror of nature's ways, the destruction and tragedy, the manifest injustices and problems of theodicy — all these must be given full scope in any adequate Christian reflection on the world reality in which we are situated.

In order to be honest with one's self, a person would have to be able to accurately determine the exact nature of reality, which to date I don't think any of us our capable of that task.

Yes — and I think there is something in our human nature that is about survival that while a good and necessary thing to have can when mixed with none of us being perfect lead us to perceptions and magical thinking which may or may not be in touch with reality.

Indeed, this Enlightenment view of nature and human nature is foundational for the industrial west (and now for everything from the global economy to the sexual revolution), in which the over-riding objective is, in the words of C. S. Lewis, «to subdue reality to the wishes of [human beings].»

For a long time he will look to the marvels of art to provide him with that exaltation which will give him access to the sphere — his own sphere — of the extra — personal and the suprasensible; and in the unknown Word of nature he will strive to hear the heartbeats of that higher reality which calls him by name.

They're showing you why your religion is wrong, which can be subjectively shown to be inaccurate, silly and not consistent with reality and the nature of the universe as we know it today.

«My point is that any summary conclusion jumping from our conviction of the existence of such an order of nature to the easy assumption that there is an ultimate reality which, in some unexplained way, is to be appealed to for the removal of the perplexity, constitutes the great refusal of rationality to assert its rights.»

First, since process thought concerns itself with the totality of human experience, it must necessarily take very seriously the fact of the religious vision and the claim of countless millions of people of every race and nation and age to have enjoyed some kind of contact with a reality greater than humankind or nature, through which refreshment and companionship have been given.

Various promissory notes are given (PR 32 / 47), such as the sole explicit discussion of «the «superjective» nature of God» (PR 88 / 135; but see PS 3:228 f), and the famous «fourth phase» of the last two pages of Process and Reality, which proposes a «particular providence for particular occasions.»

However, when it comes to the various resurrection stories it becomes difficult to make any claims about the specific nature of what actually happened.5 What is important, of course, is the reality to which these accounts bear witness.

With a certain simplification of the state of affairs, which however brings out more clearly the decisive factor without falsifying it, we might say that formerly the object and situation of a man's action were simply data supplied by nature with which he was in contact and by simple human realities which recurred from generation to generation again and again.

There can be little question that Whitehead himself accepted this; he believed that the tenderness, sympathy, and love which were shown in Jesus» life and death are in fact the disclosure of the nature of the Divine Reality who is the chief — although not the only — principle of explanation for all that has been, is, and will be.

By way of contrast, in a static atemporal pattern of thinking, in which the context does not affect essentially the nature of being, it is indifferent to a given being into which ontological dimensions of reality - in - process it is placed.

Indeed, the most recent study of them, by E. Jüngel in his Paulus und Jesus, claims that the Kingdom of God actually becomes a reality for the hearer of the parables in the parables themselves, which are, by their nature as parable, peculiarly well designed to manifest the reality of the Kingdom as parable (E. Jüngel, Paulus und Jesus [21964], pp. 135 - 74; cf. J.M. Robinson, Interpretation 18 [1964], 351 - 6.)

«The consequent nature of God is added to meet the awful fact of evil which Whitehead sees and feels so keenly» Quoting from Process and Reality V, I, Wieman spoke of Whitehead's great sensitivity to the tragedy of the loss of beauty, richness, and value.

The problem for Nature, as he describes it in Process and Reality (Part II, Chapter III, Section VII) is to produce societies which can survive through time but which do not sacrifice all opportunity amongst their constituent actual occasions for what he called «intensity» of experience.

In this way the ontological argument, by drawing out the presupposition of metaphysical understanding, indicates that the choice before us is between holding that there is a God and that «reality» makes sense in some metaphysical manner, whether or not we can ever grasp what that sense is, and holding that there is no God and that any apparent metaphysical understanding of reality can only be an illusion which does not significantly correspond to the ultimate nature of things — unless this «nihilism» be regarded as a kind of metaphysical understanding instead of its blank negation.

Hartshorne is willing to begin with the metaphysical reality of God and other selves (not just as a postulate, but as concrete existences), and then to use inference and imagination to provide an account of their nature and relations — an account which can he more or less adequate to its object, given the limitations of our form of consciousness.

For such a view leads to the most grotesque bifurcation of reality which is much worse than that criticized so convincingly by Whitehead: on one side, the realm of timelessly valid propositions, including those referring to future events, while on the other side the temporal realm of nature and mind in which the timeless propositions are being gradually embodied.

By calling his own brand of naturalism «integral,» Artigas wishes to convey the notion that nature as understood by the natural sciences points beyond itself to a larger reality to which the natural owes its existence, a reality to which the methods of the natural sciences do not of themselves, however, give direct access.

Here he contends that just as Chuang - tzu tried to perceive the nature of reality from the perspective of fish or butterfly, so, too, should Christians seek to transcend the boundaries of history, religion and culture to develop deeper contacts with the mysterious ways in which God operates.

The public philosophy is the claim that the objective law of right, written into the nature of things, makes on citizens, as contrasted with the claims that the citizens make on the natural and social reality on which they depend.

Secondly, unlike the classical Indian Christian Theology, or for that matter the Indian classical Philosophy of the high caste, which is based on the transcendental nature of the Ultimate Reality and a cyclical view of history.

Both offer large scale systematic accounts of the nature of reality in general, largely dismissing the suggestion that the only world we can know is one whose main structure is determined by the human cognitive system and which, therefore, only exists for us.

This is the view of the Trinity as immanent, the way in which God embodies the very nature of reality as relational or communal.

To still others, Thomas's sensitivity to the demands of both grace and nature, both God and man, both faith and reason, manifests that awareness of the «whole» which, whatever the limitations of his own formulations for all these realities, any adequate Christian theology must maintain.

A thing's reality is its having a nature of its own, one which is both distinct from and relative to other things.

This ideology which is present in mass media by virtue of their nature and social organization then shapes how they represent social reality through processes of selection and reinterpretation.

In order to grasp more vividly the way in which the fallacy of mistaking abstractions for concrete realities has inclined thought in this direction, observe the following «rough» breakdown of nature's hierarchical structure: 16 i.e.

The first results of these metaphysical inquiries can be found in the five books of the manuscript «Notes towards a Metaphysic» (written from September 1933 till May 1934), in which he makes an endeavor to construct a cosmological - metaphysical system of his own, 5 following the example of Whitehead's and Alexander's description of reality as a process, but based on his method elaborated in An Essay on Philosophical Method, 6 and in «Sketch of a Cosmological Theory,» the first (never published) cosmology conclusion to The Idea of Nature.

The realization of the crucial significance of relations between persons, and of the fundamentally social nature of reality is the necessary, saving corrective of the dominance of our age by the scientific way of thinking, the results of which, as we know, may involve us in universal destruction, and by the technical mastery of things, which threatens man with the no less serious fate of dehumanization.

His defense of the revivals and of emotion in religion rested on a broad argument which included God and the nature of reality itself.

There are differences, thirdly, as to the nature of the object — whether it is material reality, thought in the mind of God or man, pantheistic spiritual substance, absolute and eternal mystical Being, or simply something which we can not know in itself but upon which we project our ordered thought categories of space, time, and causation.

Nor is that parallel nothing more than an interesting accident; I believe that it is a parallel so profound and so revealing that it gives us insight into the nature of the Eucharist as the chief piece of Christian worship while it also provides us with the clue as to how the gospel which is proclaimed can become the life - giving reality of the Christian tradition down the ages to the present day.

Suppose we take this process and generalize and say the nature of reality is events or processes which are created by the present unifying of themselves out of the possibilities of passive past causes.

Insofar as science is able to describe at least a slice of the reality in which we live, it is incumbent on the theologian and philosopher to be cognisant of how science describes the nature of the universe and the beings who inhabit it.

We can, indeed, partake of the divine nature, but only insofar as we respond to God's initiative in Jesus Christ, and in doing so are incorporated into the new reality which arises out of his death and rising again — a reality which is referred to again and again as his Body.

McHenry sees the «concrete experience» on which the scheme is to be founded, as Whitehead does in Process and Reality, as referring to the units of nature as they are in themselves.

The nineteenth - century view of the nature of physical reality was that the world was composed of particles (tiny things) which reacted to each other according to scientific laws.

Einstein always held that the statistical nature of Bohr et al.'s «Copenhagen interpretation» was an insufficient answer, and there must be a deeper and deterministic explanation of reality which will explain the behaviour of individual particles, and not just the stochastic ensemble.

That is the cosmological view which understands reality in terms of nature, i.e., what is given objectively in human experience.

However, the Church's theological discourse can not be so intimately bound to any one scientific theory, as «the final way» to explain something, that it becomes difficult to separate itself from such a theory, either because a theological doctrine itself can no longer be explained without it (which it can) or because a scientific theory has been superseded by a more coherent scientific theory (better able to explain reality) as is the nature of progress in science.There is a precedent for this in the Galileo controversy from the 1600s.

The communication to created nature of what we call the «supernatural» is not something extraneous, therefore, it is the communication of the supreme order of being, by which we mean sheer reality.

They also spoke of «natural law,» which they believed to be a statement of the nature of reality.

In an almost steady stream of articles and books he attempted to work out aspects of a theological empiricism which was, in fact, based on Whitehead's early book, The Concept of Nature, but which rejected the complexities of metaphysics found in Process and Reality.

Unconsciously, perhaps, the subsistence farmer, and even the peasant village, are assimilated to images of an unhistorical nature which serves civilization and industrialization but has no inherent reality.