Sentences with phrase «so than philosophy»

Not exact matches

«Because of our emphasis on the long - term, we may make decisions and weigh tradeoffs differently than some companies... We will continue to make investment decisions in light of long - term market leadership considerations rather than short - term profitability considerations or short - term Wall Street reactions... We aren't so bold as to claim that the above is the «right» investment philosophy, but it's ours, and we would be remiss if we weren't clear in the approach we have taken and will continue to take.»

His philosophy is simple: «Clothing should be quieter than the woman so that her true beauty can shine through.»

And you know, look, I had read a ton of books at that point but they were so... you read «Market Wizards» by Schwager, and then you read Peter Lynch, and then you read Jack Bogle, you've got three completely different... So I read Nick Murray, was the book that made... probably changed more about my investment philosophy than anything elsso... you read «Market Wizards» by Schwager, and then you read Peter Lynch, and then you read Jack Bogle, you've got three completely different... So I read Nick Murray, was the book that made... probably changed more about my investment philosophy than anything elsSo I read Nick Murray, was the book that made... probably changed more about my investment philosophy than anything else.

Despite having been in the investment business for over a decade at that point, most of my reading had been about other value managers, so I was excited about learning from traders who used completely different investment philosophies than we used at Oakmark.

«What's going on is that many CEOs, COOs, GMs, and other executives haven't figured out that sales and marketing alignment is more about culture, philosophy and business orientation than it is about marketing providing sales with leads, marketing messages and sexy product brochures and sales selling enough so everyone, especially those in marketing, gets to keep their jobs.»

She did mention in the video that even her atheist friends were telling her that her philosophies were actually more Christian than atheist, so I rather think she was latently religious all along, sort of like gays who live for years in hetero relationships, then finally realize what they are, after years of saying something else.

(A) While it is evident that Hegel was greatly inspired by Aristotle, perhaps more so than by any other philosopher, it is equally evident that he believed Aristotle's philosophy to be in need of reform in the light of intervening developments.

The fallacy is bound to occur so long as Two is neglected, for the reason that men do not adopt a philosophy because its proofs are beyond question and its conclusions completely satisfactory — this being never the case — but because its proofs seem to them stronger and its conclusions more satisfactory than would be true of what they regard as the alternative.

It is clear that philosophy, no less than theology, has always taken it for granted that man has to a greater or lesser degree erred and gone astray, or at least that he is always in danger of so doing.

So, too, pastors and church officials must be more than cheerleaders for one or another political position or philosophy.

everything in the universe evolves, not only life forms but also memes, Religion is a meme so it also change in conformity to its era or time of its conception as faith.Because in pre scientific times thousands of years ago, the scientific method of approach or philosophy has not existed yet, myth or merely story telling is considered facts, The first religion called animism more than 10,000 years ago believed that spirits or god exists in trees, rivers, mountains, boulders or in any places people at that time considered holy.hundreds of them, then when the Greeks and Romans came, it was reduced to 12, they called it polytheism, when the Jews arrived, it was further reduced to 1, monotheism.its derivatives, Christianity And Islam and later hundreds of denominations that includes Mormonism and Protestants flourished up to today.So in short this religions evolved in accordance to the scientific knowledge of the age or era they existed.If you graph the growth of knowledge, it shows a sharp increase in the last 500 years, forcing the dominant religions at that time to reinterprete their dogmas, today this traditional religions are becoming obsolete and has to evolve to survive.But first they have to unify against atheism.in the dialectical process of change, Theism in one hand and the opposing force atheism in the other, will resolve into a result or synthesis.The process shall be highlighted in the internet in the near future.

So while we can not fully trust what we learn from philosophy, this is no different than being cautious about what we learn from nature and conscience.

A genuine philosophy of history regarding the beginning8 of genuinely human history, and a genuine theology of the experience of man's own existence as a fallen one which can not have been so «in the beginning», would show that where it is a question of the history of the spirit, the pure beginning in reality already possesses in its dawn - like innocence and simplicity, what is to ensue from it, and that consequently the theological picture of man in the beginning as it was traditionally painted and as it in part belongs to the Church's dogma, expresses much more reality and truth than a superficial person might at first admit.

The philosophy of absolute idealism, so vigorously represented both in Scotland and America to - day, has to struggle with this difficulty quite as much as scholastic theism struggled in its time; and although it would be premature to say that there is no speculative issue whatever from the puzzle, it is perfectly fair to say that there is no clear or easy - issue, and that the only obvious escape from paradox here is to cut loose from the monistic assumption altogether, and to allow the world to have existed from its origin in pluralistic form, as an aggregate or collection of higher and lower things and principles, rather than an absolutely unitary fact.

«His work in philosophy forms part, and a very important part, of the movement of twentieth - century realism; but whereas the other leaders of that movement came to it after a training in late - nineteenth - century idealism, and are consequently realistic with the fanaticism of converts and morbidly terrified of relapsing into the sins of their youth, a fact which gives their work an air of strain, as if they cared less about advancing philosophical knowledge than about proving themselves good enemies of idealism, Whitehead's work is perfectly free from all this sort of thing, and he suffers from no obsessions; obviously he does not care what he says, so long as it is true.

Evidence points to theories and they're reputable and so I trust those more than a religious person using the bible as the only source of proof for history, science, philosophy, ect...

So one can see that modern philosophy is neither more nor less than paganism.

It is also important to add that philosophy is less than the totality of Christianity, so that any philosophical understanding of evil can not possibly be sufficient for anyone who suffers.

It is more philosophy than science (not a bad thing), so I personally don't follow it very well.

If so, the reconstruction of philosophy undertaken by Whitehead in terms of the «needs Process and Reality was intended to meet» (WEP 134) was on a far more sweeping scale than the solution of the problem of repeatability and unrepeatability.

Descartes himself acknowledged that his cogito ergo sum is already fundamental in Augustine's philosophy (letter to Colvius, 14 November, 1640), and he believed that his philosophy was the first to demonstrate the philosophical truth of the doctrine of transubstantiation, and could go so far as to claim that scholastic philosophy would have been rejected as clashing with faith if his philosophy had been known first (letter to Mersenne, 31 March, 1641) Indeed, nothing is more revolutionary in modern philosophy than its dissolution of the scholastic distinction between natural theology and revealed theology.

So if Tocqueville is right that the partial truth of democracy needs to be corrected by the partial truth of aristocracy to properly appreciate both who we are and what human liberty really is, then lots of political philosophy types need to look to the South more than they have.

Philosophy properly and adequately analyzes God's necessary aspects, but can not tell us what his contingent aspects are, other than the bare assertion that there are such contingent aspects, features of God's activity which happen to be so but just as well could have been otherwise.

Both Marxism and pragmatism, along with more recent analytic philosophies of action, help to make sure that the other moment of action or praxis in the self's essential structure will be brought out no less effectively than the moment of existence or self - understanding on which existentialist philosophy so sharply focuses.

Gil you have asked some very good questions why does bad things happen in the world i personally do nt know God did nt explain to Job either why he had to suffer.What i do know is that God desires that none of us should perish but that all would have eternal life in him through Jesus Christ.This world will one day pass away and the real world will be reborn so our focus as christians is on whats to come and being a witness in the here and now.Both good and bad happens to either the righteous or the sinner so what are we to make of that.What we do know is that God will set all things right at the appointed time the wicked will be judged and the righteous will be rewarded for there faith isnt that enough reason for us to believe.Free will is only a reality if we can choose between good and bad but our hearts are deceitfully wicked we naturally are inclined toward sin that is another reason whyt we need to be saved from ourselves so what are we to do.For me Christ died and rose again that is a fact witnessed by over 500 people that were alive at the time and was recorded by historians how many other religious leaders do you know that did that or did the miracles that Jesus did.As far as the bible is concerned much of the archelogical evidence has proven to be correct and many of prophetic words spoken many hundreds of years ago have come to pass including both the birth and the death of Jesus.Interested in what philosophy you are believing in if other than a faith in Jesus Christ so how does that philosophy give you the assurance that you are saved.Its really simple with christianity we just have to believe in Jesus Christ.brentnz

So my criticism is really itself an hypothesis: do the readers feel as I do that ambiguity, suffering and perishing have a more substantial place in human experience than is rendered by Hartshorne's philosophy?

But we all know (I hope so anyway) that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophies.

Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion, so Whole Foods is the only company on this list that hasn't incurred my ATHEIST WRATH and intention of a boycott.

James would do more than name the new philosophy; he would popularize it so successfully that Peirce faded into the background of his own eccentricity.

The longing to move out of time (which involves change and so is «bad») into a state of timeless permanence (which is therefore «good»)-- characteristic of most post-Aristotelian philosophy and much contemporary Christianity — is thus seen to have more in common with Platonic dualism than with biblical witness.

It seems to me, therefore, that the metaphysical background of process thought is far more germane to the evolutionary picture provided by biology than is the mechanistic philosophy, implicit or explicit, that so often accompanies evolutionary theory.

Had James not cast Royce so thoroughly into his shadow — had American philosophy followed the path of a thinker with his eye on the Absolute rather than that of the shrewder social pragmatism of Dewey — the intellectual history of twentieth - century America might have been different.

Now I think that in making this distinction Whitehead makes a good and original initial point; because it is the fact that philosophers, by instinct, always think heterogeneously about nature, whereas scientists, equally by instinct, don't, which, more than any one thing, makes the philosophy of science so unreal a subject for actual research scientists.

Kind of like people who would keep the ancient writings from the commonfolk in this day and age, in order to maintain their own view of the world, rather than allow all philosophies to circulate so that folk can choose.

The plain fact remains that the spread of the movement has been due to practical fruits, and the extremely practical turn of character of the American people has never been better shown than by the fact that this, their only decidedly original contribution to the systematic philosophy of life, should be so intimately knit up with concrete therapeutics.

I applaud people who have chosen that path and stick to it, and I must say I find it intensely tedious to listen to those cynical «vegan - bashers» who think they are amusing as they snark away at vegans without having any idea why they are even doing so, other than being threatened by something they don't understand, or by some vague aversion they have to any spiritual - sounding practice or «liberal - hippie - sounding» philosophy.

This dish showcases their philosophy: «we all share so many things and have many more similarities than differences.

but u are continuinh talking about «our philosophy»...» our philosophy» like u said has been pass the ball without any idea and without winning any mayor throphy for the last 12 years... so let alexis do what he do... he can lose balls, but he scores, he creates, he fights, give us beautifull moments of football, and better than all, win us games... a team with 11 ozil does nt win games... with 11 alexis yes... so stop demanding more ozils and to criticate alexis... it is not a coincidence that ozil always looks for alexis, its because he knows alexis is the man who can transform him from the most creative player to the assist king, and again, better, eho can help him to win games (i love ozil and he is a winner, do nt missundertand me)..

I know he is better than that but it will clash with his philosophy for doing so.

... Finishing 2nd will have strengthened his beliefs even more so, that his current crop are more than capable of making a challenge... but there is a big difference in going all out to win something, rather than making up the numbers just to make a challenge and thats where Wenger's philosophy lies....

It's so «SAAAAAAD» that Arsene wenger philosophy and Sentiment have blinded you to the Point that you have Failed to realise that the World has moved on from the past football ideas that Players are more happy winning Trophies these days than Playing football like an Academy.You claimed wenger said he wanted to build a team that plays football and is recognised for the way it plays and bla bla bla.

so just forget about those idiots who call themselves pundits, to me they biased pundits who hate Arsenal because they play better football than the so called «big teams» and the fact that Arsenal have a good philosophy in which it's being runned.Now, instead of the idiotic pundits to appreciate the good work Arsenal are doing they turn around and hate on Arsenal but we will prove them wrong as we have started already with the FA cup and Community shield.Manu are panic buying LOLZ

Mary White, more than any of the other Founding Mothers was my inspiration.She articulated the philosophy of La Leche League so very, very clearly.

We need to admit that the forces are greater than any one rule or philosophy so we don't carry all the responsibility on our shoulders.

This question is meant to be related more to «Ethics» or «Morality» rather than «Politics», but I couldn't find such Stack Exchange sites, so I am posting here, after dropping the «Philosophy» site -LRB-...

I believe Swiss bankers are a more cultured lot than our ones and do appreciate philosophy and culture, so my point still stands.

Of course, this only makes this sense if you first accept that a «pure» liberalism exists, and if so, one that is more applicable to 19th - century political philosophy than 21st - century party politics.

I get frustrated enough on so many occasions that I would love to run... because my philosophy is so different than the current governor's and he's sending the state in the wrong direction,» DeFrancisco told 1300 AM host Fred Dicker.

«Frans has taken more than his fair share of criticism because it is so at odds with some of the conservation philosophy in Europe,» says Kathy Willis, a professor of long - term ecology at Oxford University.

«My overall philosophy on sweeteners is that Americans are used to things tasting incredibly sweet, so I caution against overuse of artificial and naturally derived but calorie - free sweeteners that can taste hundreds of times sweeter than sugar,» says Largeman - Roth.