Sentences with phrase «other philosophical questions»

When you are doing «900 shows a year,» an issue Stuart Polansky addresses in a book with that same title, questions of why and other philosophical questions get very short shrift for very practical reasons, most of which relate to school system structure and community value systems.

And Ogden has other philosophical questions to ponder, some of which were thrust in his face during his trip to Las Vegas for the Tyson - Bruno fight.

Throughout Hartshorne's work love has been the standard by which decisions are best determined, yet he fails to think as broadly on abortion as he does on most other philosophical questions.

Not exact matches

While most Protestant theologians turned to Barth and other Neoorthodox thinkers, Cobb and a few others felt the need to deal directly with the question of God's reality, in a way that would not avoid philosophical issues.

While the great majority of Protestant theologians turned to Barth and other Neoorthodox thinkers, a few of us felt the need to deal directly with the question of God's reality, in a way that could not avoid philosophical issues.

Has anyone a right to assure us, in advance of exploration of the other five, that the Anselmian (unconscious) selection of one among the six — as the faithful rendering either of the religious question or of the most fruitful philosophical one — is safely established by the fact that the choice has been repeated no less unconsciously by multitudes of theologians?

And where custom dictates that for the sake of convenience we keep to the traditional academic structure, the philosophical question still remains as to whether biology (or psychology or any other human science) has a genuine right to autonomous existence.

I conclude that Craig and the process theist are at an impasse so that if a decision is to be made concerning the cognitive superiority of either the kalam or process theistic models, this must be made by appeal to issues in philosophical theology other than the question of the extension of the past.

When I reflect on the infinite pains to which the human mind and heart will go in order to protect itself from the full impact of reality, when I recall the mordant analyses of religious belief which stem from the works of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud and, furthermore, recognize the truth of so much of what these critics of religion have had to say, when I engage in a philosophical critique of the language of theology and am constrained to admit that it is a continual attempt to say what can not properly be said and am thereby led to wonder whether its claim to cognition can possibly be valid — when I ask these questions of myself and others like them (as I can not help asking and, what is more, feel obliged to ask), is not the conclusion forced upon me that my faith is a delusion?

One final philosophical question: Even if we agree that benevolence is supererogatory in a way that non-malevolence is not, even if we agree that our duty to give and help is much weaker than our duty not to hurt, we can still ask if giving, helping, and bestowing can in some cases become wicked: wicked because it is debilitating to the self - reliance of the recipient; wicked because it deprives one of the capacity to give also to others; wicked because it infantilizes the recipient; wicked because it cements a bond between giver and taker that should be much more evanescent.

But others went on to ponder more deeply the abstract questions, the philosophical and metaphysical presuppositions of the Teaching.

2) You can maintain your position from a faith perspective, and say this, but then I'd have to seriously question [a] your historical integrity (for example, the historical position of Revelations as canon, although more of a debate than the other texts, was still NOWHERE NEAR contestable enough for you to draw this sort of conclusion) and [b] your philosophical integrity (for example, if you dismiss Revelations because it doesn't support your position, i'm going to ask: by what authority do you think you have the right to discern this?

The question that Christians (or other religious people) should ask themselves here is philosophical rather than sociological: Granting (as I think we must) that modern science has given us new and often penetrating insights into reality and that modern technology has enormously increased our control over our lives, is it not possible that in the process some very precious things have been lost?

These questions present no special difficulty if one's philosophical stance is external to the human knowers one is considering as subjects; if, in other words, one speaks of knowers only in the third person.

Yet we reiterate that throughout the earlier period in question — from 1935, say, to 1960 — a few theologians such as Canon Raven in England had continued along the lines laid down in the twenties, while Professor Hartshorne and some others in the United States (notably E. E. Harris, in such books as Revelation Through Reason) were carrying on the work on the strictly philosophical side.

Those who have read the book know that Tickle goes into much greater detail about the questions and challenges raised by cognitive science, literary deconstruction, higher criticism, Freud, Jung, Campbell, Einstein, Heisenbuerg, and many other philosophical / scientific / cultural movements.

For a FREE DEMO please search: «The Philosophical Debate Generator [Free Demo Version]» Uses: - P4C (Philosophy for kids)- Form time activities - R.S. / Philosophy / Citizenship cover lessons - Debating societies - Making best use of spare time at the end of lessons Discussions follow one of four formats, each asking students to move from one side of the room or the other to make their position clear: teachers should then use questioning to foster a debate between students, encouraging them to present reasons for their choice and defend their position.

Now I will wrestle with the other three great philosophical questions that have been plaguing mankind for centuries.

In fact, the terms in which he rejected it bring forward other intermedial and philosophical questions:

For what narratives are worth, and we all know how much fiction and wishful thinking goes into them, let me venture the following hypothesis, very sketchily: Bram van Velde's work represents a direct result of the philosophical questioning of the consequences of World War II, which would continue and develop from the fifties to the seventies through the works of Simon Hantaï and Supports / Surfaces, among others.