DE: Whitehead called his view a radical empiricism because it claimed to be more
radical than sense - data empiricism, as going back to a more primitive kind of experience.
Not exact matches
The first danger is that, with its strong appeal to the
sense of the dramatic and the romantic, the
radical response may attract individuals who see the world in black and white, who may then see themselves as «holier
than thou» because they make do without new furniture or red meat or homogenized peanut butter.
Many
sensed that succeeding generations would need more spiritual sustenance
than was provided by a
radical commitment to social justice.
When considered in light of the substantive moral basis of democratic governance, Roe v. Wade and similar decisions stand out as «undemocratic» in a far more
radical sense than the one Justice Scalia has in mind.
The replacement of Aristotelian «matter» with Whiteheadian «creativity,» and the consequent precedence given by the key concept of prehension to the relational over every merely qualitative determination of a being, undoubtedly allows the Whiteheadian [actual] entity to embody process in a more
radical sense than does being as conceived by Aristotle.
Instead, in a
radical sense of the term, faith means an adventurous and exploratory rather
than a strictly dogmatic posture.
x) Orthodox (Advaita) Vedanta realizes that substantial pluralism is at best less true
than substantial monism; but it fails, in my opinion, to see that the
radical pluralism of actual entities and the
radical monism of God or Nirvana (however one distinguishes these) are the two poles of the real problem, not the ordinary substantial pluralism of common
sense, a compromise which bars the path to the highest ethical and spiritual insight.
So if the Scottish Greens (with six MSPs) have any
sense, they'll play hard to get - not least because their policy agenda (anti-fracking and properly redistributive in terms of income tax) is significantly more
radical than the centrist SNP's.
If balls out training increases the production of damaging oxygen
radicals than it makes perfect
sense to limit oxidation as much as possible, right?
I came away from this book with a more balanced view of US politics — many of those I like came off worse, and those I did not like were shown to have been better
than I thought — with the exception of Lincoln, who in hindsight seems to be a
radical in most
senses.
«But this is a more neutral chronology
than is usual, and in that
sense is more
radical.
And political parties and politicians, like journalists, comedians and seemingly
radical intellectuals, seem to be no better at making
sense of the «swirling fucking madness»
than the next man.