Sentences with phrase «of understanding of human nature»

Marxism's lack of understanding of human nature, it's morally flawed call for violence, it's debasement of the individual to be subservient to the Party and to the State, the lack of curtailment on the state's power, and a host of other issues caused it to be a political failure as precedent to it's economic failures, which are legion.

On a similar theme, anyone with a modicum of understanding of human nature would see it as desirable to deliver a good, close to even spread of referees from around the country.

The study draws a number of important conclusions on the basis of careful analysis both of the research data and on the basis of the understanding of human nature that was unanimous until recently among Catholic philosophers.

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.

He had an instinctual understanding of human nature, and was pretty obsessed about giving customers value for their money.

And I believe understanding this element of human nature — which I'll discuss in the next section — is key to building a life that: a) involves ambitious striving toward goals and having impact in the world, which contributes to a sense of meaning, and b) gives you a shot at realizing true happiness by avoiding a soul - sucking competitive rat race.

Understanding that by nature, humans will often walk away from a system that is overly complex, modern brokers do an excellent job of supplying interfaces that are straightforward and user - friendly.

Bourdain is talking about how an understanding of human nature can result in a huge variance in the unit economics of a business.

Both are instances of ignorance in logical reasoning and understanding of science especially in regards to human nature.

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.

I understand this grinds against human nature and our perception of what is fair and just.

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.

Far be it from me to improve upon Pascal (or Trueman), but a robust understanding of human nature finds entertainment to be more than «legitimate.»

Let's just admit we don't know the true origin of any «creator» and understand that morals, ethics and our human nature come from a deeper nature than we probably understand, but more likely from a desire to continue the human race, survival.

But here let us set aside the exact nature of these powers, how human beings have used them, and how human beings should use them, and consider instead several accounts of how best to understand the species that possesses these powers.

All of which is to say that this fourth view of nature and human nature contends we understand ourselves most truly by imagining neither that we stand apart from, dominate, and bend nature to our will; nor that we are some unnatural plague upon nature; nor that we are simply immersed in nature and lack both the power and the duty to superintend nature and possibly even improve it.

One of the core points overlooked by unbelievers is that human understanding is not exhausted by mapping the world of nature.

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).

What we need is a greater understanding of the environmental limits which most certainly exist regarding human intervention into nature.

But though I will argue for this teleological view of nature and human nature from empirical premises and from reason, my purpose here is not to debate or attempt to prove this point, but rather to illustrate how some teleological understanding of nature and human nature is a necessary premise for the idea of environmental stewardship.

Becuase the more one learns of science and nature, the clearer it is that there is no reason to believe in god and the more one learns of human nature, the more one understands why millions of us still do.

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.»

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.

And yet we must not be afraid of the «dualist» tag, rightly understood, when speaking about human nature.

People often can not understand the question of human nature because their way of understanding it is framed (whether they know it or not) by the ideas of positivist empiricism.

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

His primary intention remains to critique an understanding of human nature.

One can see recent standoffs in Geneva on so - called traditional values resolutions as manifestations of a conflict between two rival conceptions of human dignity: one, supported by most Western advocates, that focuses on individual autonomy; and the other, proposed by voices from the global East and South, that focuses on traditional understandings of human nature.

What America needs is not therapy for a poor white version of Psychological Man but a renewed vision of the common good built on a renewed understanding of a common human nature.

Whitehead did work out a complex theory of value, but my point here is only to indicate that Whitehead's way of understanding human beings as part of nature both requires that we extend the ethical discussion and gives us clues as to how to do this.

The authors should be applauded for engaging honestly and thoughtfully with the scientific evidence in their search for an understanding of human nature which is consistent with the experimental evidence.

I have often thought, particularly when working in the diocesan marriage tribunal, that our acknowledgement of the fact of Original Sin gives us such a head start when it comes to understanding human nature, and why people act the way they do.

Even though the two scholars represent opposite ends of the evangelical spectrum on salvation, both made essentially the same allegation: the wording seems, at best, theologically careless and, at worst, represents a heretical understanding of sin, human nature, and the human will.

The union is to be understood as the taking up of human nature into the divine rather than of the lowering of the divine nature to the conditions of the human.

In his encyclical letter on the importance of St. Thomas» work, Pope Leo also alluded to the Church's need to maintain a deep study of science: «When the Scholastics, following the teaching of the Holy Fathers, everywhere taught throughout their anthropology that the human understanding can only rise to the knowledge of immaterial things by things of sense, nothing could be more useful for the philosopher than to investigate carefully the secrets of Nature, and to be conversant, long and laboriously, with the study of physical science.»

One possibility is that we are simply using this current language to speak of the importance of the church's developing its doctrine of nature more fully and in ways appropriate to our new understanding of the relation between human beings and the natural world.

That realm of nature which used to be beyond human understanding and control, with which, therefore, one could only establish a creative relation by means of this hypothesis «God», is now more and more being conquered by reason and technique.17

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.

These are the understanding of human beings and of nature that are now built into the whole structure of the dominant economic thinking.

Since there was a «seed» of this cosmic principle of reason in each and every human being, humans, through the exercise of reason, could understand the nature of reality and seek «the good life.»

Everything in the Jewish and Christian understanding of God would be lost if God were thought to be a static and inert being rather than the living deity who acts in nature, history, and human experience.

To recognize the factual nature of values as responses of actual human beings in actual or imagined situations is to remain on the solid ground of experience which all can understand.

As with Spinoza, nature is identified with the ultimate, and a human being appropriately understands himself or herself as but one of many equally important and interrelated expressions of God: a «temporary and dependent mode of the whole of God / Nature» (SDnature is identified with the ultimate, and a human being appropriately understands himself or herself as but one of many equally important and interrelated expressions of God: a «temporary and dependent mode of the whole of God / Nature» (SDNature» (SD 310).

The series» second major idea is that the Stone Age adaptations bequeathed to us a shared human nature that is fundamental to both our scientific understanding and our sense of moral challenge.

Other factors inhibiting the church from developing a new understanding of creation are the patriarchal nature of the ecclesiastical establishment and the expectation of a millennial period in which human strife will be overcome and superseded by a reign of peace and justice.

On the contrary, religious experience is to be understood in the light of Whitehead's insistence that «in human nature there is no separate function as a special religious sense (RM 123).

The rejection of dualism and the full inclusion of every aspect of human reality within nature profoundly affect how nature is understood.

All religions including Christianity, all cultures and all secular ideologies are in informal and formal dialogues about what is the meaning of our common humanity and about the path of common action - responses to the situation from their respective understanding of the nature and destiny of the human selfhood.

It is something like an «understanding of existence,» except that it has implications for the nature of the holy reality and the world in themselves, not simply human existence.