Sentences with phrase «of understand the distinctions»

Where I can still picture and, more importantly, kind of understand the distinctions between a G, M, Q, JX and QX, etc., Infiniti's new nomenclature is utterly devoid of an anchoring point, a spot among all the alphanumeric mumbo - jumbo to plant your feet and mentally measure the relative physical and metaphysical, if you will, differences between segments.

Not exact matches

Understanding how to influence these folks requires comprehending the distinctions of each.

This set of monetary policies affects financial asset prices in a different way compared to changes in short - term interest rates, and we should be humble about what we claim about understanding the importance of this distinction.

In summary, the key to understanding the current market environment is to explicitly make a distinction between 1) the long - term and full - cycle market outlook, which is primarily driven by valuations, and 2) the near - term outlook for the current «segment» of the market cycle, which is primarily driven by the risk preferences of investors.

A distinction that comes across when interacting with the executive team, listening to recorded presentations, and interfacing with their site is they seem sincerely committed (passionate actually) to efficiently and cost - effectively filling the funding gap that's existed between individual real estate developers looking for short - term loans for their fix - and - flip, bridge loans, and other construction projects and investors who understand the investment value of real estate and want to fund those projects.

Comparing the two cryptocurrencies will provide a basis for understanding of the fundamental ways in which they are similar, as well as highlight the numerous distinctions between them.

There could, for instance, be a holdback of 15 %, and a repayment of 30 %, so it's important for the business owner to understand the distinction.

2) you seem to fail to understand the basic distinction of Christianity.

The distinction the Oliners made between the appropriation of religious traditions by non-rescuers and rescuers comes to mind here: The rescuers tended to understand the inclusiveness and extensiveness of injunctions to love to extend to all persons and groups.

Rather, it is a set of Lochner - like expansions (in my judgment) of the Founders» understanding of natural rights (which itself may be the correct understanding of Locke, or not, and which, to necessarily complicate things even more, itself was usually moderated in practice by most Founders holding elements of the communitarian - classical view) that is the real ground of my distinction between the natural rights conception of liberty and the economic autonomy conception.

Oliver O'Donovan has noted that this distinction between making and begetting, crucial for Christians» understanding of God, carries considerable moral significance.

Buber's argument was based on the promptings of moral conscience, but he was adamant that there is no real distinction between morality and true religiosity in his understanding of Judaism.

I understand theology, in distinction from philosophy of religion, to be intentionally Christian reflection about matters of importance.

The bishop smuggles in a lot of dubious ideas in that distinction between «sacred» and «pastoral,» and his understanding of «vernacular» is more than a little biased.

I continue to learn about important distinctions between sociopathology and narcissism, and other such points relevant to expanding our understanding of the dynamics of abuse.

Finally, in the justly famous, but very obscure section of «Force and the Understanding» known as the «Inverted World,» the metaphysical distinction inherent in all designations such as inner - outer, intelligible - sensible, noumenal - phenomenal collapses, and with it the attempt of substance or «essence» metaphysics to evade contradiction by locating «contradictories» (or contraries) in ontologically disparate realms.

Of paramount importance to the Hegelian perspective on this relation is the well - known distinction between understanding and reason as two levels of thinking, for involved in this distinction is the view that logic, as it has been traditionally conceived, is merely a logic of the understanding, and that reason, or speculative thinking, employs a higher, more inclusive logic, one that is «dialectical» in naturOf paramount importance to the Hegelian perspective on this relation is the well - known distinction between understanding and reason as two levels of thinking, for involved in this distinction is the view that logic, as it has been traditionally conceived, is merely a logic of the understanding, and that reason, or speculative thinking, employs a higher, more inclusive logic, one that is «dialectical» in naturof thinking, for involved in this distinction is the view that logic, as it has been traditionally conceived, is merely a logic of the understanding, and that reason, or speculative thinking, employs a higher, more inclusive logic, one that is «dialectical» in naturof the understanding, and that reason, or speculative thinking, employs a higher, more inclusive logic, one that is «dialectical» in nature.

I will also try to establish, or at least render plausible, the view that while the distinction between a logic of reason and a logic of the understanding may have been one that was necessary and legitimate for Hegel to maintain, it has, given developments in modern logic, as well as changes in the modern view of the nature of metaphysical thinking, become obsolescent.

For Whitehead, given his implicit rejection of the Hegelian distinction between a logic of the understanding and a logic of reason, and given his conception of the nature of the metaphysical argument, God is not, and can not be the inevitable culmination of such a logical progression.

Ong is atypical, however, in his pointing out that work, too, «is an expression of freedom and joy» when authentically pursued.67 Ong rightly understands that it is false to draw a distinction between play as individual, free, and spontaneous, and work as collective, intentional, and ordered.

The above outlined distinctions are not intended merely as a technical exercise but as an attempt better to understand and foster the proper use of the marriage act.

The failure to distinguish between them and to replace the distinction with an idea of identity has been an impoverishment in our understanding of actions and relationships.

Here then is the crucial distinction between the New Testament and existentialism, between the Christian faith and the natural understanding of Being.

The tendency of Eastern Christian thought has been to start with the evident distinction of persons in the Trinity and then to try to understand the mysterious unity of God.

It should serve as a standard, a mark of distinction, or criterion against which to measure our attempts to articulate metaphysical assumptions adequate to understanding this success.

I suspect, for instance, that Hartshorne's distinction between necessary, a priori truths and contingent, a posteriori truths may commit the error of trusting in dichotomies (cf. AD xi, 134) when it is applied to our understanding of God's activity.

I don't expect you to understand the distinction — you've show over and over that you are incapable of comprehending nuance.

Everyone understood that Lorenzelli's «XXIV Theses» were aimed in the direction of the sixteenth - century Jesuit scholastic philosopher Francisco Suárez, beginning with the doctrine of the real distinction between essence and existence in creatures, which was not generally held by his followers.

The answer is to point out that both activity and passivity, like God's love, knowledge, and reality, are attributes of God and so to be understood in terms of the formal dipolar distinction.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred.

I may agree with you there to some degree, but I do think 1 Cor 15 makes a definite distinction), as the means of Justification salvation (I would quantify belief here, as the agreement of the fact of Jesus death for ones own personal sins (Understanding one is a sinner and needs a savior) on the cross, That he was buried, and was raised to life on the third day).

My purpose here is to clarify that distinction and then to evaluate criticisms of the Pledge when the distinction between the two types of marriage is properly understood.

In sum, Wyschogrod believes that the problem of supersessionism turns on the church's capacity to understand its own identity in terms of the abiding religious significance of the distinction between Jew and gentile.

I think our discussion has shown that the distinction between the two concepts can be a bit foggy sometimes and perhaps depends a lot on one's own definition / understanding of each.

And with this understanding of the intended interpretation the initial distinction between the formal system (which is metaphysical) and its interpretation (which is cosmological) is blurred.

Essentially, when it comes to the role of faith and works, it is critical to understand the important distinction between the free gift of eternal life to all who simply believe, and many of the other benefits of the Christian life which can be gained through following Jesus daily.

Perhaps, one should understand here the two basic distinctions made by Eliade in the methodology of the study of religious phenomena.

It is to Cahill's credit that, in marked distinction to the Jesus Seminar made popular by the media, he does not restrict his attempt to understand Jesus to a study of the Synoptic Gospels.

All Nye is saying is, the future successful development of America and the world depends on people who understand the distinction, and who can relate to and interact with the natural world scientifically and objectively, without being constrained by belief in the creation story or any other explanation of the world not supported by facts and evidence.

There are certainly other distinctions that could be made, but these are some of the basic ideas to get you started as you seek to understand the role of faith and works in the life of the believer.

They will rightly point to the danger that the distinction between «two realms» and the «voluntaristic» understanding of God's activity in creation may simply grease the skids for the slide into secularity.

We agree that the distinction of actuality and potentiality is crucial for understanding the extensive continuum in its relation to past, present, and future.

In the debates over humanitarian intervention in the 1990s some moralists made a distinction between «war,» which they understood as having to do with state uses of armed force for their own interests, and intervention by military force for humanitarian purposes, which they regarded as altruistic and not «war.»

One must understand the full significance of this presentness if one is to understand the symbolic function and the dependent and mediate reality of the I - It relation (Karl Heim has made Buber's distinction between the presentness of the l - Thou relation and the pastness of I - It the basis for his whole philosophy of dimensions and hence in turn of his theology.

Fuller's understanding seems to blur the distinction between the intention of the Bible as a whole and the intention of a particular Biblical text.

Of paramount importance to the Hegelian perspective on this relation is the well - known distinction between understanding and reason as two levels of thinking, for involved in this distinction is the view.Of paramount importance to the Hegelian perspective on this relation is the well - known distinction between understanding and reason as two levels of thinking, for involved in this distinction is the view.of thinking, for involved in this distinction is the view...

The distinction here is fundamentally of the same order as the other distinctions mentioned, but it has played a much larger role in Christian self - understanding than have the parallel distinctions elsewhere.

This is the first distinction we make in our understanding of the word «revelation of God.»

Of utterly key importance here is that we understand Whitehead» s distinction between the «physical» and the «mental» poles of an occasioOf utterly key importance here is that we understand Whitehead» s distinction between the «physical» and the «mental» poles of an occasioof an occasion.

But if the Trinity be understood in a purely economic sense, so that the distinctions correspond only to aspects of God manifested in His activities of creation, revelation, inspiration or the like, then there are no eternal relations of self - giving within the divine life of Absolute Actuality.