Sentences with phrase «of human understanding as»

Instead of presenting an art endeavoring to reveal its contents to viewers with the least amount of interference, The Thing and the Thing - in - Itself features works that act out the limits of human understanding as they create mysteries, pose conundrums, and leave viewers with provocative questions.

The key to Aquinas, as Lonergan has shown, is a nondominative understanding of human understanding as preceding and grounding conceptualization.

Not exact matches

Marsh calls it, «an eye - opening exploration into how children are raised around the world and how child - rearing can inform the understanding of human nature more broadly,» noting the author's most essential point is that «one of the things which makes humans special as a species is that we don't limit care to our own children.

As I argue in a forthcoming paper in the Georgetown Law Journal, there are cases in which we should think not in terms of the rights the corporation should enjoy, but in terms of the appropriate limits to be placed on the corporation, understood as a tool for achieving human objectiveAs I argue in a forthcoming paper in the Georgetown Law Journal, there are cases in which we should think not in terms of the rights the corporation should enjoy, but in terms of the appropriate limits to be placed on the corporation, understood as a tool for achieving human objectiveas a tool for achieving human objectives.

This technique has been used, as Arnold reports, to trace the progress of cancers, advance our understanding of obesity and diabetes, and prove that brain cells continue to form through a human being's lifetime.

As a student of human behavior who tries to understand why we do the things that we do (often to no avail), I've had to accept that sometimes there just isn't any explanation for why that person just did that really weird thing.

Cycorp charged itself with figuring out the tens of millions of pieces of data we rely on as humans — the knowledge that helps us understand the world — and to represent them in a formal way that machines can use to reason.

«I think there are implications in a narrow area such as judicial decision - making, as well as in a more general area of «understanding and explaining human behavior,»» says Mocan.

It's crucial you understand the value of coming across as relatable and human rather than hiding behind a corporate wall.

Assuming the letter you've received doesn't paint the whole picture for you, calling this number will be well worth it as talking to a person not only helps you understand the nuances of the situation but there's comfort in knowing that a human being with a name and a face at the IRS is there to help you figure things out.

It has been relegated to many narrow use cases involving pattern recognition and prediction (some of which are very valuable and useful, such as improving cancer detection, identifying financial risk and fraud, and other high performance computing applications), but it has not developed a general «understanding» of human interactions, human emotions, speech patterns and human responses to information.

Currently Search engine crawlers are Virtual humans as they can understand meaning of any sentence and also uniqueness of content.

At the core of this new entrepreneurial path is an understanding that in today's world of commerce, good business is relating to customers as humans, creating wealth in a manner that supports everyone winning, for the betterment of individuals and society.

«A full reading of Bernstein's email reveals an important point ---- his assertion that, in the 1980s, we never denied the possible role of human activity as a cause for climate change, and he further makes clear that, at that point in time, there was a great deal of uncertainty and lack of understanding of climate change, even among leading scientists and experts,» said Keil, adding that today, Exxon «believes the risk of climate change is clear, and warrants action.»

They noted the «increasing departure from the basis of the WCC» — which they defined as primarily to restore unity to the Church — and cited «a growing departure from biblically based Christian understandings» of the Trinity, salvation, the gospel, the doctrine of human beings as created in the image of God, and the nature of the church.

Not for the communist atrocities those were caused by attempts to engineer society, based on a flawed understanding of innate human nature and a fallacious belief in humans beings as blank slates.

Religions incorporated and codified these basic social values and skills, and quickly learned to take credit for them — as if, without the religion, we would be doomed to not have them — although we see them in every human society, including hunter - gather tribes with no sense of gods as we understand them After many centuries of religious domination, enforced through pain of death, ostracization or other social sanctions, allowing religion to take credit, as well as failing to question other religious claims — has become a cultural habit.

Maybe it comes down to what we as humans expect of how much we want to understand.»

genesis 1:7 - 1:30 - those verses literally state what humans observe as a «full day», a single cycle facing the sun and a single cycle facing away from the sun is what humans since the dawn of time have understood to be a «day».

Often concentrating on the early writings such as the Habilitationsschrift and the Lublin lectures (neither has been translated into English), the author indicates where the young thinker incorporated Scheler's phenomenological value ethics, Kant's formalistic ethics of duty, and Aquinas» understanding of the rational desire of the will into his own synthesis of human action and value.

It is the soul that we have to purify whether being religious or not religious to live in a code of understanding as the only judge is God and no human is to judge another although might try to guide but not hart..

At the centre of our faith is this reality that in order to be understood by those identified as His people and perhaps more urgently to be understood by those who weren't yet His people, God became human.

Both of these forms of Counter-Reformation Catholicism think of the moral life as primarily engaging the will, whereas Evangelical Catholicism understands the moral life to be a matter of training minds and hearts, the reason and the will, to make those choices that truly contribute to goodness, human flourishing, and the beatitude that enables the friends of Jesus to live forever within the light and love of the Most Holy Trinity.

To embrace such a system, as flawed as all human understanding is, without questioning it is certainly NOT reflective of anything Jesus ever taught.

Why you all don't understand that Chrisianity gave humans dignity in the belief of free will and our obligation as Christians to forgive then you avoid reality.

As for human rights, my inclination is to say that a concept of human rights properly understood is still well worth promoting, and need not detract from the political responsibilities that Reno rightly says have been neglected.

I think knowing that he was a long time and very trusted confidante of Pope John Paul II, knowing he had experience as disciplinarian of the clergy, and knowing he had a clear (as any human can) understanding, and knowledge of scripture is why he was picked to be Pope.

You will run into trouble whenever you parcel out God's Word, rather than understanding the Bible as a progression of revelations and solution to the human condition, with the common thread and purpose of Jesus Christ running throughout from beginning to end, to further the glory of God.

Such fevered inanities, which would be dismissed as the ravings of a madman had they issued from the likes of the Reverend Jimmy Swaggart, suggest why O'Brien is a poor guide to understanding the millennium now closing, or to assaying the human and democratic prospect beyond the year 2000.»

Most highly educated people who understand quantum physics and it's related fields realize that humans might not ever be able to understand everything, including the origins of the Universe, but it is human nature to look for it and to try to understand as much as we can about the universe and how everything interacts.

@dirt «understanding the Bible as a progression of revelations and solution to the human condition,»

But as a human being he understands all kinds of situations, and he is open to all kinds of people, including those with different sexual characteristics.»

I see no reason why church leaders should cease promoting Christian understandings of human rights in public settings as a way of promoting justice, morality, and the common good.

Had you concentrated on the Social Sciences as I have done, History, Sociology and Psychology you might have a clearer understanding of how the human mind creates and maintains the framework for understanding and defining «Reality».

Instead of misappropriating celebrity death as a gospel opportunity, I believe we should use it to demonstrate that we understand and relate, not to our culture, but to human beings.

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.

One understanding of human nature common to the modern era sees man as standing both above and outside nature (after Descartes, as a sort disembodied rational being), and nature itself as raw material — sometimes more pliable, sometimes less — for furthering human ambition (an instrumentalist post — Francis Bacon view of nature as a reality not simply to be understood but to be «conquered» and used to satisfy human desires).

Of course, we are engaging a Mystery in the deepest sense when we seek a direct encounter with God and existentialism has its serious limitations as do all human attempts at understanding; but I am drawn to Kierkegaard's insight into prayer:

If, as Hartshorne does, one uses one's prior understanding of various types of human experience as the source of generalized descriptions which together constitute the final concept of experience, how does one decide whether the generalizations have been radical enough to support application to all — including nonhuman — experiences or were sufficient only to cover human experiences?

Im not understanding I guess... you object to my statement that the creator of the universe, as humans generally portray «him» — would have be superior intellectually to our greatest minds by a wide margin?

And here I note several different understandings of the place of human beings in nature common in contemporary discourse, and acknowledge as well the conclusion implicit in my use of the term «intermediate being.»

One might go further and point out that the concept of «person» helps us understand human dignity as something deriving from the fact of one's intrinsic being» rather than from the extent of freestanding autonomy, the «quality of life,» that a person might demonstrate.

He defends, against the Neoplatonists, the Christian understanding of human nature as intrinsically open to sociability such that the life of virtue should be a social life.

To be sure, the Word became flesh, identified with us, was tempted in every way as we are, knew the common human condition of suffering and death, and in that identification provided us with not only an example but an intercessor who understands our infirmities.

Such human «mindfulness» should be reflected upon in order to understand what the success of science means, and, as a result, in discerning an absolute Mind to be worshipped.

The revelational rap against apologetic theology is that it either engages in a sellout to the «world» (the self - disclosure of God being so utterly relativized by human wisdom that Christians are unable to tell atheists anything that they don't already know), or it is an exercise in various intellectual imperialisms, such as: «We can prove the existence of God» or «If human culture really understood itself, it would find that it is striving toward that which we already have.»

Sin is a mystery in the fullest theological meaning of that term, the «mysterium iniquitatis», and we can not expect fully to understand how, so to say, we as humans can stand outside God's will.

The study of history is arid and incomplete unless it is understood as a work about (and by) individual human beings — and, moreover, a story whose substance and manner of telling are matters of moral significance.

Even the noble king could perceive the difficulty of such a method, for he was not without insight into the human heart, and understood that the maiden was at bottom deceived; and no one is so terribly deceived as he who does not himself suspect it, but is as if enchanted by a change in the outward habiliments of his existence.

It assumes that human life is fundamentally practical; hence, knowledge is not most basically the correspondence of some understanding of reality with «reality - as - it - is,» but it is a continual process of analysis, explanation, conversation, and application with both theoretical and practical aspects.