Sentences with phrase «see human nature»

I don't see human nature changing that much in the next 50 years.

The Renaissance, the other wing that came out of the breakup of the medieval synthesis, saw human nature only as a realm of limitless possibilities.

This, we will argue, means seeing the human nature of Christ, body and soul, as the cornerstone, source and summit of Creation.

His sees human nature as essentially good and well - meaning, as something that can be improved through the efforts of institutions like the post - Vatican II church, which have the resources to educate and form their members.

Jarvis sees human nature as «mean, nasty, brutish, selfish, and capable of great cruelty and meanness.

Not exact matches

It is human nature for people to see an ad for ABC Inc., and then see an ad with the same layout and structure for XYZ, LLC and completely ignore it.

So does the Accord, which I believe has been a substantial contributor to the low rate of inflation we now see in Australia: the Accord processes are not perfect but that is the nature of compromise and human affairs generally.

By showcasing the most witty, joyful, bullet - pointed versions of people's lives, and inviting constant comparisons in which we tend to see ourselves as the losers, Facebook appears to exploit an Achilles» heel of human nature.

Their accounts of human nature see persons as aggressive, competitive, and self - interested.

But the great boon of Catholicism to the world is that it can also stand outside the ebbs and flows of history to see that human nature — the truth in which love appears — remains unchanged from age to age.

Sorry, Vic, but it's part of human nature to see it as a validation of our choices when others make the same choices.

One understanding of human nature common to the modern era sees man as standing both above and outside nature (after Descartes, as a sort disembodied rational being), and nature itself as raw material — sometimes more pliable, sometimes less — for furthering human ambition (an instrumentalist post — Francis Bacon view of nature as a reality not simply to be understood but to be «conquered» and used to satisfy human desires).

If you begin there, «you see human life, dynamic, twofold, the giver and the receiver, he who does and he who endures, the attacking force and the defending force, the nature which investigates and the nature which supplies information, the request begged and granted — and always both together, completing one another in mutual contribution, together showing forth man.»

Here we can see that the bourgeois mind is a version of a secularized understanding of human nature.

One can see recent standoffs in Geneva on so - called traditional values resolutions as manifestations of a conflict between two rival conceptions of human dignity: one, supported by most Western advocates, that focuses on individual autonomy; and the other, proposed by voices from the global East and South, that focuses on traditional understandings of human nature.

Rather He sees its life - giving efficacy for human nature.

Lewis» confidence in human nature, with its capacity for reason and susceptibility to myth, gave him a measure of patience with those who did not see the truth or saw it only dimly.

So when we come to the reason for the Incarnation we see it as fundamentally to fulfil human nature irrespective of sin.

The words from Psalm 118 «Suscipe me, Domine» (receive me, Lord) are sung by those making profession as a monk or nun, and the teaching offered here on the nature of vows speaks to anyone who sees their human journey in terms of vocation.

With the philosophy of Rene Descartes (1596 - 1650), the nature of reality was no longer seen as writ large over the universe only to be discovered by the exercise of reason but rather was what the human mind perceived, interpreted, made it to be («Cogito, ergo sum.

I don't see anything remotely wrong or uncoufe in this suggestion; to the contrary, I see it taught not only in scripture, but in the VAST majority of texts on human nature.

I also know that humans by flawed default will interpret the words as they morally see fit, because it is in our nature to judge others against ourselves and our own ethics, beliefs, and morals.

Fallen human beings see scattered sparks of truth, momentary flashes of illumination, and blurred pages from the book of nature.

And in thinking about our living and our dying, we must somehow see and think both truths about ourselves, we must distinguish but not separate these two perspectives on human nature.

But, you look at the world, nature, the human body and you see ACCIDENT?

One way of viewing the religious crisis of our time is to see it not in the first instance as a challenge to the intellectual cogency of Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, or other traditions, but as the gradual erosion, in an ever more complex and technological society, of the feeling of reciprocity with nature, organic interrelatedness with the human community, and sensitive attention to the processes of lived experience where the realities designated by religious symbols and assertions are actually to be found, if they are found at all.

The fourth step goes a bit further, to see «the trajectory eventuating in the creation of human historical existence» not «as a metaphysical surd but rather as grounded in the ultimate nature of things, in the ultimate mystery.»

In yesterday's post we saw that Scripture and theology seems to indicate that in some way humans were enabled by God to guide and control natural forces, but when we sinned, we lost this ability, and nature spun out of control.

What we see in the Syrian tradition is a Christianity which in its understanding of human nature was eager to preserve the freedom of the human being and a certain degree of self - reliance, thereby laying strong emphasis on ethical power and the sense of responsibility.

The investigation was co-chaired by the Bishop of Truro, Rt Revd Tim Thornton, who said whilst working on it he «seen evidence of some of the worst aspects of human nature».

But we shall not really «see» the Kingdom of God in these everyday miracles of nature and human life unless we look and look again, and not only look, but mark the spot at which the vision came to us, that we may know where it will repay us to make further explorations.164

«But, at the same time, we have also seen evidence of some of the worst aspects of human nature, in that there are people - men, women and children - in this country who are going hungry, and yes, there are some people who attempt to abuse any system that is put in place, be that from the state or voluntary bodies.

The principles of human action, like the processes of nature, fall within a universal order established by the Creator, to be recognized at any level by those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

In this notion one can see the first stirrings of the existentialist philosophy according to which humans have no given nature, but define themselves by their decisions and commitments.

This presumption flatters the complacency of the modern mind, and prevents us from seeing the poverty of our current assumptions about reason, nature, and human fulfillment.

David R. Carlin sees the animal rights movement as anti «Christian and an attempt to promote a purely biological concept of human nature, thus linking it to Hitler and the Holocaust.

(Crandall does not address the point, but it is difficult to see that bringing a doctor in for consultation would change the nature of the decision about taking human life.)

But to see the totality of nature as existing only in and through the being of human beings is equally unacceptable.

This is why the Olympic Games retain such a powerful hold on our moral imagination: We get to see what human nature is capable of in its nobler moments.

It does not reflect prevailing patterns of human behavior... If you look around carefully, you will see that most people are not really maximizers, but instead what you might call «satisfiers»: they want to satisfy their needs, and that means being in equilibrium with oneself, with other people, with society and with nature.

When your post calls out for atheists to also review the way they see the world, to not think themselves superior because they are comfortable with their current Laws and Theories, and to always concede that the unknown is the unknown, that human nature, rather than faith, is what generates evil and bigotry, then maybe you'd have something.

He sees that he's being overtaken by sad, hard truths about human nature.

More must now be said about why, conceptually, it is important to see that religious commitment involves making serious claims as to the nature of things, what the setting of human life is like, as well as serious claims as to how human persons should behave in that setting.

Since the doctrine of sin is the only element known by some of his critics, a common conclusion is that Niebuhr was too pessimistic about human nature, that he saw only man's sin, and that he offered no proximate or ultimate hope.

I present urban form to my students in the long and large western humanist tradition that sees cities as communal artifacts that human animals by our nature make in order to live well (with all the teleological and virtue ethics implications of that tradition's notion of living well).

Jane Addams, who saw very deeply into human nature, expressed it when she said that in all wholesome human relations there is a forgiveness in advance.

For it begins with God, not with human reasoning, and how we conceive of God is dependent on the nature of the reality that is presented to us — in the language of the Bible, that which is seen.

On the self - making nature of choices, see G.Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol.1, Franciscan Herald Press 1983 Ch.2; J.Boyle, «Freedom, the Human Person and Human Action», in W.E.May (ed), Principles of Catholic Moral Life, Franciscan Herald Press 1981; J.Finnis, Fundamentals of Ethics, OUP 1983 pp.136 - 144.

That was in the early»70s, when with long hair, bobbles, bangles and beads and a gleam of communitarian utopianism in my eyes, I finally found my way into the fourth century treatise by Nemesius, peri phuseos anthropon («On the Nature of the Human»), where it at length dawned on me that ancient wisdom could be the basis for a deeper critique of modern narcissistic individualism than I had yet seen.

Traditions of every kind, hoarded and manifested in gesture and language, in schools, libraries, museums, bodies of law and religion, philosophy and science — everything that accumulates, arranges itself, recurs and adds to itself, becoming the collective memory of the human race — all this we may see as no more than an outer garment, an epiphenomenon precariously superimposed upon all the other edifices of Nature (the only truly organic ones, as it may appear): but it is precisely this optical illusion which we have to overcome if our realism is to reach to the heart of the matter.