Theologians, trained to see
philosophical statement as the model for theology, often manifest mindsets that are univocal and literalistic.
Not exact matches
This comes out clearly in one of his latest
statements about the therapeutic» function of philosophy
as applied to social issues: «helping people get out from under outdated
philosophical ideas, helping break the crust of convention.»
Secular humanism «is» a
philosophical viewpoint that encompasses such things
as morality and your
statement would be on only slightly less shaky ground if you had said that about humanism.
For on his own principles if there were not some kind of awareness of causal efficacy, there would be no warrant for making
statements about it: «Nothing is to be received into the
philosophical scheme which is not discoverable
as an element in subjective experience» (PR 166/253).
On the contrary, the meaning of doctrinal
statements such
as the creeds and other historical professions of belief, the circumstances which evoked them, and the
philosophical presuppositions which helped to determine the character of their assertions are all matters of the greatest interest and importance.
Yet, a person must ultimately accept some creedal
statements and reject others,
as they create their own
philosophical journey.
After all, «in
philosophical discussion, the merest hint of dogmatic certainty
as to finality of
statement is an exhibition of folly» (PR xiv).
, the whole endeavor is a frothy, witty, mischievous way to sell perfume
as a lighthearted lifestyle accessory,
as opposed to a
philosophical statement on transience and mortality coming from noted philosopher Brad Pitt — Chanel, please take note.
Here it serves a purpose
as philosophical dialogue that refutes Charade «s pull - out - the - guns finale, replacing violent action with a profound pacifist
statement: honour among multiple thieves.
From the opening monologue — where Segel (
as title character Jeff) talks about how M. Night Shyamalan's Signs is a
philosophical statement of the highest order — it isn't clear whether Jeff, Who Lives at Home will take a mocking tone towards its inhabitants or a sincere one.
Keith's interactions make for hit - and - miss low - key drama,
as he has passing interactions with characters who are either one - dimensional, (his cheery grandparents, a woman later who wants drugs from him) or refreshingly eccentric, like a drug ring guru dude named Mom, who espouses Bible quotes and other
philosophical statements in one of the movie's rare unforgettable scenes.
With the intention of creating work that could assume a direct material and physical «presence» without recourse to grand
philosophical statements, he eschewed the classical ideals of representational sculpture to create a rigorous visual vocabulary that sought clear and definite objects
as its primary mode of articulation.
His films, often described
as «visual essays», move from rhetorical questions to factual scientific
statements, presenting concepts and ideas that emerge through
philosophical texts and research.
Though that is more a
philosophical than a practically useful
statement, and it's not the same
as claiming that «AGW caused this», which many of Gleick's opponents are arguing against (i.e. strawman).
It happens in both directions, and there's often an inverse relationship, so I have to interpret your
statement as a
philosophical wish rather than an accurate observation of fact.