Sentences with phrase «philosophical arguments with»

The comments, as well as some of the nuance in Yang's positioning, suggest that the fork may also best be considered the end result of a continual lack of communication, coupled with the difficulty of carrying out long, deeply philosophical arguments with individuals who have cultural and linguistic differences.

Ignorant philosophical arguments with flexible premises having ZERO basis in observable or measurable reality?

Not exact matches

Philosophical and political arguments, by which we might understand the meaning of the term as it is used most commonly today, begin with Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France.

But if you are looking for consilience, in which multiple lines of independent evidence converge on the same target, then Schwartz's argument is a good one to have in your arsenal, for it fits nicely with biological arguments for intelligent design (cf. Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box), recent philosophical work on mental causation (cf. Robert Koons» Realism Regained), cosmological fine - tuning (cf. John Barrow and Frank Tipler's The Anthropic Cosmological Principle), and consciousness studies (cf. Dean Radin's The Conscious Universe).

Start with the science that shows the humanity and individuality of the embryo, and then make philosophical arguments about the equality of all human beings as persons possessing inherent dignity.

At one Evangelicals and Catholics Together meeting, writes Tom, the Catholic co-chairman of ECT, which Chuck helped found twenty years ago, some of the Catholic members questioned the value of natural law arguments «on the philosophical ground that no reason exists that is not already deeply saturated with prior pre-understandings and commitments.»

The argument will be more accessible to readers with a measure of familiarity with the pertinent philosophical and scientific questions.

Don't try to divert the subject with irrelevant philosophical arguments.

I am assuming that this view is in serious tension with the Bible and am arguing that it is not logically required by the philosophical argument.

A second objection might be that, however plausible our philosophical argument above, absolute time «went out with Newton» after the Einsteinian revolution.

The Legacy Project aims not just to «promote» Hildebrandian ideas but above all to encourage a truly philosophical reception of his work — which is to say, a reception which does not dwell primarily on items of purely scholarly concern but which weighs von Hildebrand's theses, arguments, and formulations with the central question of philosophy, «Is it true?»

While well - acquainted with the tradition of philosophical reflection on the soul and its relationship to the body, Fr Selman's knowledge of recent scientific research relevant to his subject appears less impressive and his terminology, and even some of his ideas and arguments, can therefore appear outdated or irrelevant.

For that reason I thought Ivan's final sentence highly questionable, and fatal for Pomocon / Porcher dialogue: «we should not confuse the philosophical argument in favor of the local community, or a very reasonable attraction to its many virtues, with either the possibility or desirableness of that arrangement for us today.»

In line with this argument, there is a tendency to introduce a new philosophical approach to theological problems.

This photograph vividly portrays Ford's seriousness of purpose, including stern attention to intricacies of argument and to the nuance of textual details, and most of all captures the total concentration of intellectual energy and engagement with which Lewis Ford has unfailingly, throughout a long and distinguished career, approached the life of philosophical reflection.

It is possible to respond to these arguments by saying that our basic intuitions need to be revised so as to be in keeping with a «loose and popular» sense of identity and not a «strict and philosophical» sense, to use Bishop Butler's terminology.

ID remains the same untestable, non-scientific philosophical position its always been with no viable claim to «supporting evidence,» just a series of arguments of incredulity.

In the preceding chapter the argument with Metz was about features of his thought that axe governed by his philosophical commitment to the Kantian tradition.

If I am not a Hauerwasian, I am even less a process - relational thinker; hence I am ill - equipped to judge the merits of these proposals on the basis of their coherence with certain basic tenets of process - relational thought — which seems to be the main basis upon which Muray wishes them to be judged since his paper is otherwise fairly thin on more general philosophical or Christian theological arguments for the views he puts forward.

They will lead the way with clear, positive, and rationally persuasive arguments making the philosophical case for a principled conservative polity ¯ and social issues will play a central role.

My issue with the arguments about «climate change» are philosophical one about what we can know in relation to truth.

The philosophical re-construal of the market that I am recommending is quite consistent with empirically based arguments to the effect that one or another form of government intervention is counter-productive and that it may make very good sense in some areas of activity to let the market operate under its own logic.

Those who support the idea of legislating in favour of assisted suicide will always give you the philosophical argument that it is our choice when to end our own lives and it should be a choice to be able to die with dignity.

The sort of problem Sontag has with Jameson is, of course, the very argument Bordwell has with anyone from Slavoj Žižek to Jacques Lacan, evident in a comment he makes on his blog (but not in the book) that echoes directly Sontag's: «Most of FRT [Zizek's The Fright of Real Tears] offers standard film criticism, providing impressionistic readings of various [Krzysztof] Kieslowski films in regard to recurring themes, visual motifs, dramatic structures, borrowed philosophical concepts, and the like.»

... In learning philosophy you have to learn to argue for or against philosophical opinions and to understand and assess philosophical visions and you have to become familiar with some of the arguments and outlooks that have been advanced on certain topics in the past.

Also, My Thesis Writing Service thinks that in order to do better on a philosophy thesis you should make strong and logical arguments, couple them with demonstrated knowledge, reference and discuss the philosophical concepts as well as thoroughly proofread the finished work after you are done writing it and you will do great.

And yes, you can make the «well, government enabled it» standard argument and say the the solution is to sprinkle magic Libertarian pixie dust and make everyone into Randian supermen, but in the real world where we have billions of people who need to coexist in a functioning society with legacy social structures we need solutions that work, not philosophical wankery.

As the interpretation of infinity in economic climate models is essentially a debate about how to deal with the threat of extinction, Mr Weitzman's argument depends heavily on a judgement about the value of life... A lack of reliable data exacerbates the profound methodological and philosophical difficulties faced by climate change economists... The United Nations conference in Paris this December offers a chance to take appropriate steps to protect future generations from this risk... http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/07/climate-change (MOST COMMENTING ARE NOT AT ALL IMPRESSED)

The extent that we care about the next generation is a serious philosophical argument — one which many people have to deal with on a smaller scale when they think about, for example, what they should do with their inheritance (which, incidentally, is a different argument to what you think about the next group in general, as kinship relationships get treated differently).

Leaving to one side the nice philosophical questions that this raises, the obvious difficulty with May's argument in respect of the EU is that it is hard to square with her position in relation to the ECHR.