Sentences with phrase «philosophical questions as»

They think about philosophical questions as well as historical, economic, and political ones.

For the philosophical question as to how the making of a sign can impose a moral obligation see G.E.M.Anscombe, Collected Philosophical Papers Vol.3, Blackwell 1981 pp. 10 21, 97 103.

Colin Gleadell asks a philosophical question as talk swirls of $ 1 billion in sales taking place at ArtBasel (which seems, well, aggressive.)

One of my colleagues in law school posed a philosophical question as to whether death could be prorogued.

Not exact matches

To get the most out of each conversation, I recommend asking your team members to come prepared with questions and ideas regarding strategy, as well as philosophical conversation material.

The biggest of philosophical and theological questions such as life after death can only be answered with faith or educated speculation.

In the course of that same history, and in the context of crises posed by philosophical and cultural changes as well as manifest ecclesiastical corruptions, the question of how to determine authentic apostolic teaching came into intense dispute.

Whitehead's philosophical thinking about time begins with questions about passage as a character of nature.

Just as the definition of philosophy is a philosophical question, so the definition of faith is a theological issue.

Rather because it excludes faith it also excludes philosophical reason, thereby deciding all ultimate questions in advance on the basis of a liberal philosophy of nature and reason so ubiquitous as to be invisible.

The question is presented as part of a larger discussion on the nature of philosophical and imperial authority, yet it is clear that the imperial part of the argument is not necessary to its main thrust, as a result standing out all the more.

Noddings» answers to these questions have won her praise in feminist and leftwing circles; her book is hailed by Rosemary Ruether and Daniel Maguire as an «important contribution to philosophical ethics» and a work that should be «significant» in theological seminaries.

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?

This source of the questions does not lessen the value of their work as philosophy, but it does mean that their philosophical work was a part of their work as theologians.

When the philosophical synthesis that was used as the vehicle to expound the teachings of the Church gave way it seemed to throw into question many of the certainties of our faith.

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.

Woody poses basic religious or philosophical questions often ignored by the secularly oriented as «too deep» and skipped over by religionists engrossed in particular issues.

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?

Today, writes Buber, «the question about man's being faces us as never before in all its grandeur and terror — no longer in philosophical attire but in the nakedness of existence.»

The form in which the answers to these questions have come is not so much that of systematic treatises as of concretizations of alternative philosophical models: the open classroom, gay marriages, tire commune, house churches.

Buber defines «philosophical anthropology» as the study of «the wholeness of man,» and he lists the following as among the problems «which are implicitly set up at the same time by this question»:

These questions get to the heart of a philosophical problem posed by Intelligent Design: It supposes that natural law, which is the basis for science, operates most of the time but is periodically suspended, as in the Cambrian «explosion» and the origin of life itself.

Although there are various articles and books showing what I have called systematic theological concerns, philosophical criteria are used, usually exclusively, when dealing with questions of meaning and truth, criteria which are respectable in the academy.3 Process Christology, for example, usually follows Schleiermacher, and tends as a result to be embarrassed by strong exclusivist claims.

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.

These may include not only broad philosophical issues such as whether the universe has a purpose, but also questions we have become accustomed to think of as empirical, such as bow life first began or bow complex biological systems were put together.

The third section, fifty percent longer than the first two together, considers several theological and philosophical questions raised by the relation between sacred theology and contemporary evolutionary theory, They include the distinction between spirit and matter, the unity of spirit and matter, the concepts of becoming, of cause and of operation, the creation of the spiritual soul, the insights of Aristotelian scholasticism, and the biblical narrative of man's origin as it relates to the theory of evolution.

At the very same time that it has become clear that the theistic question can not possibly be discussed as a merely empirical question, it has also become clear, on secular philosophical grounds as well as religious, that contingency and relativity can be as readily predicated of ultimate reality as necessity and absoluteness.

Such a case amounts to the same thing as the question whether a Catholic of the kind we need to postulate in this instance, namely a man with a scientific, philosophical and theological formation, could, without guilt, come to the subjectively honest conviction that he can no longer honestly and in conscience believe and affirm the Church's authority.

Then there are questions regarding the nature of mind and matter as such, the concepts of becoming, and of unchanging natures, the philosophical question of the nature of the substantial soul and its relation to the body.

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?

In addition, Hartshorne's steady contention in the philosophical arena that metaphysics inevitably involves the question of God will not be regarded as insignificant by those who believe, as I do, that man and the world are incomprehensible apart from God.

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?

In this section I propose to investigate simultaneously two related questions: (1) to what extent is Whitehead's accomplishment similar to or compatible with evolutionary process cosmologies; and (2) to what extent is he influenced in his philosophical development by evolutionist theories generally, or by evolutionary cosmologists, including those whom he cites by name, such as Bergson, Alexander, and Morgan?

The history of religions» inquiry into the «meaning» of religious phenomena leads one to questions of a philosophical and metaphysical nature, but the history of religions as such can not deal with those questions philosophically.

Also, in a letter to Mark Barr concerning the possibility of being offered a post at Harvard, Whitehead says the post would be very attractive because it would provide him the opportunity of developing in systematic form his «ideas on Logic, the Philosophy of Science, Metaphysics, and some more general questions, half philosophical and half practical, such as Education» (ANW - 2 134).

Derrida's project questions the order of both language and rationality by denying the philosophical presumption that language reflects and conforms to the rational order of some external reality apart from human interpretive activity According to Derrida, Rousseau's condemnation of writing as the destruction of presence reveals language's inability to seize presence (OG 141).

A similar but less partisan question is the philosophical one asking why it is that the ultimate explanatory structure of reality, if such a structure exists and whether or not it is divine, should happen to be just as it is.

It is not necessary to raise the question as to whether van Buren is guilty of taking this philosophical tradition too seriously, of receiving the impressive blows it is able to deliver with too radical a retreat.

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.

«10 But the question of consciousness can of course not be dismissed when the philosophical stance is that of oneself as a human knower; and if cognitive consciousness is always the result of processing an input, as it appears to be with Kant's doctrine of synthesis, consciousness of the input can not be a cognition of reality.

Philosophical questions are bracketed; theological claims are acknowledged as important to the believing community without being either accepted or rejected by the investigator.

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.

I do not believe that philosophical questions are open to proofs, if that means that, from premises any rational person will accept, issues so vital to people as the existence of God will be rigorously decidable.

He touches these questions anew, insofar as they had already delivered important problems in his earlier works on pure mathematics (philosophical problems in UA, MC, and PM; historical matters in MC; and applied mathematics in his earliest scientific publications).

Here also the topics are chosen so as to elucidate philosophical points, especially the question of how and why mathematics applies to nature at all.

In his conclusion of Sociology of Religion he states: «The fact that this study is limited to a descriptive sociological examination of religious groups need not be interpreted as an implicit admission that the theological, philosophical, and metaphysical problems and questions growing out of such a study of society have to remain unanswerable.

As is widely recognized, he is a philosophical theologian willing to ask basic metaphysical and moral questions and to engage in a close dialogue with the natural and social sciences just as many seem to be retreating from these conversationAs is widely recognized, he is a philosophical theologian willing to ask basic metaphysical and moral questions and to engage in a close dialogue with the natural and social sciences just as many seem to be retreating from these conversationas many seem to be retreating from these conversations.

Ivan does not pose the question of theodicy as a philosophical conundrum, as it is often posed in the West.

again, the only way that you presume those questions are merely material & physical in nature is if you * already assume * naturalism as your philosophical point of departure.

It isn't just self - interest which is plunging Labour into civil war; there's a deep philosophical division about both the means and the ends too (as well as questions of individual competence).