We raise these limitations because they bear directly on Charles Hartshorne's question of the reconciliation of special relativity's denial of absolute simultaneity with the process view of God.15 How indeed can God participate both as
possible subject and object in every actual occasion in a universe subject to a principle of locality?
Not exact matches
These objections are likely to be reinforced in the minds of those who make them by the qualifications which Buber sets for the philosophical anthropologist: that he must be an individual to whom man's existence as man has become questionable, that he must have experienced the tension of solitude,
and that he must discover the essence of man not as a scientific observer, removed in so far as
possible from the
object that he observes, but as a participant who only afterwards gains the distance from his
subject matter which will enable him to formulate the insights he has attained.
Its methods of abstracting from the concrete actuality
and of largely ignoring the inevitable difference between observers reduce the I in so far as
possible to the abstract knowing
subject and the It in so far as
possible to the passive
and abstract
object of thought.
And all the transcendental properties of each and every existent can only be known as necessarily belonging to every being, in an analogous and hierarchical manner, because they are implicitly affirmed in every act of cognition as necessarily belonging to every possible object of knowledge by reason of the very character of a knowing subje
And all the transcendental properties of each
and every existent can only be known as necessarily belonging to every being, in an analogous and hierarchical manner, because they are implicitly affirmed in every act of cognition as necessarily belonging to every possible object of knowledge by reason of the very character of a knowing subje
and every existent can only be known as necessarily belonging to every being, in an analogous
and hierarchical manner, because they are implicitly affirmed in every act of cognition as necessarily belonging to every possible object of knowledge by reason of the very character of a knowing subje
and hierarchical manner, because they are implicitly affirmed in every act of cognition as necessarily belonging to every
possible object of knowledge by reason of the very character of a knowing
subject.
As with another film about tolerance in the Adam Sandler / Dennis Dugan (The Benchwarmers, National Security) oeuvre, I Now Pronounce You Chuck
and Larry, the
object is to perpetually insult
and poke fun at its
subjects as much as
possible before showing that deep down, they really are just kidding
and want everyone to get along.
Following their conviction that art should be to be as true to life as
possible, they decided to establish their very existence as the
subject,
object and intent of their work.
OLIVIER ZAHM — Do you mean that
objects are
subject to interpretation,
and that somehow removing the art
object from the fetish of acquisition is
possible?