Sentences with phrase «philosophical interpretation of»

It could be a long time before agreement is reached — there aren't many areas of mathematics where the foundations and philosophical interpretation of the subject matter are still being argued over after a quarter of a millennium!

This simple philosophical interpretation of coordinate geometry also has its forerunner in Whitehead's mathematics.

The first general and less specific criticism would hold that a philosophical interpretation of Christian faith almost inevitably tends to be inadequate.

According to him, religion (or his philosophical interpretation of it) fulfilled man's constant psychological need to have an image of himself and of the world by which he could orient himself.

This is a clue, I believe, not only to a philosophical interpretation of the meaning of human existence but also to the practical quest of men to find the good life for themselves and their societies.

In Our Declaration: A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality, Danielle Allen provides an informative, line - by - line, sometimes word - by - word, philosophical interpretation of the founders» document.

But these men are important historically in a third way: not only their results and their methods but the philosophical interpretations of their ideas had a major impact on Western thought.

«Israel Scheffler leaves behind a lasting legacy in the field of the philosophy of education — his philosophical interpretations of language, symbolism, science, and education remain as resonant and relevant today as when they were written,» said Dean James Ryan.

The exhibition, entitled: Carlos Estevez: Images of Thought represents his artistic practice during the years 1992 - 2009, and is accompanied by a new book entitled: Images of Thought: Philosophical Interpretations of Carlos Estevez's Art, by the exhibition's curator Dr. Jorge J.E. Gracia, SUNY Distinguished Professor (2009, SUNY Press).

Not exact matches

But even so, it would also be true that none of these positions could be known or shown by us to be true, even as interpretations of experience, by any direct appeal to experience unmediated by very complex philosophical analysis and dialectic.

This notion could be interpreted to include the scientific and philosophical wisdom which would then be integrated with biblical wisdom in an inclusive theology, although this interpretation is in tension with the flat assertion that reason is «not itself a source of theology.»

Both theistic evolution and atheistic evolution are philosophical / theological interpretations of what science can establish: evolution.

In a recent interpretation of Hegel's philosophy of religion Emil L. Fackenheim rejects Kierkegaard's view that Hegel's philosophy is destructive of religion, and argues that Hegel seeks to penetrate «the relation between rational self - activity and religious receptivity to the divine and the relation of philosophical self - activity to both.

A few theoretical chemists have openly considered the extent to which these are not merely pragmatic issues of how to proceed and how to apply the theoretician's results (which are considerable) but are issues of philosophical interpretation and metaphysical presupposition.

He believed that «the true method of philosophical construction is to frame a scheme of ideas, the best that one can, and unflinchingly to explore the interpretation of experience in terms of that scheme» (PR xiv / x).

He clarifies his rather vague definition of the field by contrasting biblical theology with five other modes of study: doctrinal theology, nontheological biblical studies, history of religion, philosophical and natural theology, and «the interpretation of parts of the Bible as distinct from the longer complexes taken as wholes.»

4 This dynamic interpretation of the primordial nature is further developed in Ford, «The Non-Temporality of Whitehead's God,» International Philosophical Quarterly, 13/3 (September, 1973), 347 - 76.

If the latter is the case, and I think it is, then it may be possible to reconcile many of the differences between the two thinkers with some creative interpretation, such that, whether they realized it themselves, Whitehead and Bergson were profoundly similar in basic philosophical outlook.

Virtually all historians these days acknowledge the primacy of interpretation, and the role of philosophical assumptions in historiography, but many are (perhaps wisely) unwilling to give themselves over to philosophy as if history just is a sort of philosophy.

Recently Western modern theologies heavily dependent upon modern philosophical (epistemological or other) concepts for theological interpretations; and this trend, too, neglected the religio - cultural and intellectual life of Asian peoples for theology, while claiming universality of Western theologies.

I disagree, rather, with the distorted interpretations based on patriarchal social patterns and neo-platonic philosophical systems which men have used to obscure the radical message of the Gospel and to oppress women.15

For critical discussions of Ogden's argument and the entire book, see Langdon B. Gilkey, «A Theology in Process,» Interpretation, XXI, 4 (October 1967), 447 - 459; Ray L. Hart, «Schubert Ogden on the Reality of God,» Religion In Life, XXXVI, 4 (Winter 1967), 506 - 515; Antony Flew, «Reflections on «The Reality of God»,» The Journal of Religion, 48, 2 (April 1968), 150 - 161: and Robert C. Neville, «Neoclassical Metaphysics and Christianity: A Critical Study of Ogden's Reality of God,» International Philosophical Quarterly, IX, 4 (December 1969), 605 - 624.

Christian's third conclusion means that Whitehead's philosophical theology is in a sense a confessional theology, i.e., a rational «explanation of an interpretation» of human experience.

What is therefore necessary, according to Cobb, is a Christian natural theology: a coherent statement about the nature of reality that recognizes its interpretation of the facts to be decisively conditioned by the Christian tradition, yet remains content to rest its case upon purely philosophical criteria of truth.124 Cobb offers such a statement in his important book, A Christian Natural Theology.

What William Christian's Interpretation has been to the philosophical debate on Whitehead's theology, John Cobb's Natural Theology is becoming to Christian assessments of Whitehead.

It was Whitehead's purpose in The Principle of Relativity to offer an alternative interpretation of relativity equivalent to Einstein's predictions; consequently, the real issue between Whitehead and Einstein is philosophical not physical.

Beverly Harrison has applied this philosophical perspective to a feminist Interpretation of creativity, freedom, and relationality.

Whether and how far these reflections concerning a positive relation between spirit and matter may be significant when it is a question of asking in philosophical and theological terms whether an ontological connection between man and the animal kingdom asserted by the natural sciences to be a fact, is open to an explanatory interpretation on the basis of the nature of spirit and matter, can only be judged after we have examined some aspects of «becoming» in general.

I shall be as explicit as possible about the presuppositions concerning how we know what we know, and the general philosophical ideas in relation to which this interpretation of the Christian faith is developed.

It can not be said that this particular interpretation of the general Christian philosophical doctrine that all that exists whether material or spiritual, must be brought under the same concept of being and conceived as subject to the same metaphysical norms, is the interpretation favoured by all philosophical schools.

Process theism, such as that of Lewis Ford and his colleagues, seems the best present means to provide interpretation (at once theistic and naturalistic) that extends to all events, including major evolutionary developments — and might even provide adequate theological and philosophical basis to moderate some culture - war hostilities.

Perhaps this passage explains both how, and why, Lewis has been as fearless as he has been inflexible in pursuing his own philosophical path, even in pursuing his own (rather than others») interpretations of Whitehead and process philosophy.

There is a principle, one too often ignored in its philosophical value, which underlies the research of all the sciences, and the interpretation, especially the mathematical interpretation, of all knowledge gathered by the «exact sciences».

He shows how critics rooted in one philosophical tradition typically interpret other traditions in ways that are different from the interpretations of those who inhabit those traditions.

But because each book omits or compresses important metaphysical doctrines, any in - depth interpretation of Whitehead's complete metaphysical theory must be garnered from all his metaphysical books, even from all his philosophical works.

Another aspect of Hall's basic philosophical position which I question is his interpretation of «creativity» and its relation to value.

We have also seen that the traditional Christian interpretations of love have been largely influenced by one kind of philosophical thought about being.

But this criticism is less impressive if we look at the theological use of these philosophical categories in the interpretation of the experiences which the paradigm community considers most significant.

Rigorously undertaken, such a procedure entails an understanding of the capacities and limitations of philosophical reasoning and the proper use of literary interpretation as it applies to Scripture.

As a matter of fact, one of the chief difficulties that confronts the Christian theological world today concerns interpretations of the Christian faith which contain hidden and uncriticized philosophical assumptions that operate under the guise of being essential ingredients of the faith.

If faith in the Word of God can only be the work of the Holy Ghost operating through intelligent decision, it follows that the understanding of the text is attainable only in systematic interpretation, and the terminology which directs this understanding can be acquired only from profane reflection, which is the business of the philosophical analysis of existence.

In times when other forces determine the interpretations of events, nature, human life and what have you, more than religious ones do, it is, in my view, a temptation to find philosophical, theological and ethical positions that can disengage Christians from intentional interactions with alternatives.

The second preconceived idea held by certain historians of religions, notably that it is necessary to consult another «specialist» for the total and systematic interpretation of religious facts, is probably explained by the philosophical timidity of many scholars.

9William Christian, An Interpretation of Whitehead's Metaphysics, especially 294 - 301 (henceforth cited as IWM); Lewis Ford, «Boethius and Whitehead on Time and Eternity,» International Philosophical Quarterly (1968), 38 - 67 (henceforth cited as BW); Lewis S. Ford, «Is Process Theism Compatible with Relativity Theory?»

You can't let outside philosophical ideas or rabinical debates influence the interpretation of the Bible.

If Hochschild's categories are a fair description of the state of New Testament interpretation, one can see that Meeks's «sociology» is largely of the social - philosophical kind, as opposed to the large majority of New Testament scholars who belong to the social - kerygmatic kind, (A significant minority is devoted to social - scientific exegesis.)

See also R. M. Hare in Antony Flew and Alasdair MacIntyre, eds., New Essays in Philosophical Theology, pp. 99 - 103; John Wisdom, Paradox and Discovery [Oxford: Basil Blackwood, 1965], p. 43, for a thumbnail criticism; C. Ellis Nelson, Where Faith Begins [Richmond: John Knox Press, 1967], p. 9, for a strikingly similar interpretation of «presuppositions.»)

Let me further propose the Novak rule of philosophical interpretation.

For example, the historical and theological areas may be combined into an area described as «Interpretation of Christianity» while the older «practical» field is divided into two, one dealing with «Church and Culture» (sociological, psychological, and philosophical studies of church phenomena in American culture) and the other dealing with the practice of ministry construed as the application of social scientific and psychological theory to clergy responsibilities.

Militant, which was formed in 1964, owed its philosophical basis to a literal interpretation of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky.