Sentences with phrase «terms of discourse»

The base that votes for him, in large part, is voting not for specific policies, but for «can do», «win at all costs», attitude, after being saddled for 2 decades with - using Trump's terminology - «losers» (specific ways of losing vary - either letting the opposition dictate the terms of discourse and the struggle, by refusing to use all available tactics; or always folding in negotiations like GOP in the House kept doing with Obama; or simply not getting desired outcomes - and specifics are largely irrelevant to the overall sentiment).

At its simplest it manifests itself in terms of questions regarding loyalty and financial dependency; at its most vicious it manifests itself in terms of a discourse where the right of Christians to call themselves Indians is itself called into question.

Among some academics also, Marxism has provided the common terms of discourse.

The ethical problems are obvious: You're changing the terms of discourse without the other person agreeing to do that.

Not exact matches

I used to know a nurse (the most trusted professional in terms of honesty and ethical standards) who consistently made me giggle by inserting unexpected F - bombs into her discourse.

In fact, the notion that a drop around the halfway point in a four - year term is only natural might be a case of Canadian discourse being clouded by American experience.

In recent months, as the 2016 election campaigns have gathered momentum, concern about the long - term effects of the buyback craze has crept into public discourse and caught the attention of politicians.

Based on my friend's definition of the goal of advertising, Occupy achieved precisely what it set out to do: it brought the facts of economic inequality out of the obscurity of government reports and tedious articles and into the broadest possible levels of public discourse in terms we can all understand.

In general, while appeal to or reliance upon one's own intuition (in some technically unspecified sense of the term) may satisfy the informal demands of many ordinary, nontechnical contexts, such intuitive conviction — however important heuristically to the individual inquirer — may be of no logical relevance to the job of satisfying the technical demands constitutive of some formal arena of discourse.

And here I note several different understandings of the place of human beings in nature common in contemporary discourse, and acknowledge as well the conclusion implicit in my use of the term «intermediate being.»

But in terms of economy, sociology, anthropology of knowledge, of science and of technology, we do not have a different discourse from the dominant powers.

«4 So there is a well - established precedent for use of the term «field» in scientific discourse.

Three of the terms used most frequently in Catholic social thought» and now, more generally, in much secular discourse» are social justice, the common good, and personal (or individual) liberty.

But even if we allowed the possibility of analogical discourse, could we attribute even the vaguest meaning to these terms when they are applied to infinite, necessary, simple Being?

However, none of this proves that, in fact, meaningful discourse about God takes place that does not use terms univocally.

But the meta - ethical character of moral discourse can not itself be the criterion in terms of which sound and unsound moral arguments can be distinguished in or through discourse.

I will call this the practice of moral discourse, appropriating the term «discourse» from Habermas and designating with it the specific social practice that suspends other purposes in order to assess the validity of contested claims (see Habermas, Theory 17 - 18,25,42; Moral 158 - 60).

With the term «external coercion,» I mean coercion that is not specific to the practice of discourse.

Following Apel, I will use the term «communicative rights» to designate the formative rights that belong to all humans as potential participants in moral discourse, and I will call the formative principle in question the principle of communicative respect.

In most cases they have overcome both political fragmentation and government overload by replacing their old governmental bureaucracies with an innovative and effective form of governance: coalitions (composed of business, government, nonprofits, universities, neighborhood and minority associations, and religious groups) that develop a cooperative agenda to improve the city and that assume many of the city government's traditional functions (economic development, long - term planning, educational reform, even care of the homeless), and that also operate like political parties of yore (providing the point of access for new groups and a public realm for discourse, debate, and negotiation concerning matters of the common good).

In the long term, the only solution is the establishment of a culture of public discourse where competence in the area under discussion matters, not an obsession with «equality,» or whatever the next catchword will be.

But I do not labor under the misapprehension that the human self can be adequately understood by holding exclusively to discourse in terms of action.

The same Americans are not in agreement on what that perception of reality should mean in terms of abortion law, but, if we believe in a society governed by democratic discourse and decision, that perception of reality and the consideration of its legal ramifications can not be ruled out of order.

The adoption of a convention favoring the terms «person,» «self,» and «persona» would greatly facilitate discourse among and within our three clusters of theorists.

The leader accepts this level of discourse, is not fooled by it, is understanding of whatever is said, and may define the longer - term task to which the group addresses its efforts.

Yet if teaching is mostly on the level of descriptive, neutral, and nonself - involving discourse, how can the student find in this a basis for a response that is self - involving in terms of behavior and commitment?

At any rate, it was left to Christian theologians of the last two centuries to expressly try, in one way or another, to «overcome theism,» and only in our own time have there been theologies of «radical demythologizing» and of «the death of God,» as well as various attempts to salvage religious discourse by interpreting it exhaustively in noncognitive terms.

The word Son here refers to the eternal Word of God, the divine Self - Expression, who in much Christian discourse has been called «the Son» — although some of us regret this because it tends to confuse things when a term appropriate to Jesus as humanly God's Son is applied to the divine reality itself.

Yet we can only speak in succession of what appears in contemporaneousness; in discourse we must abstract relations, such as love, from the terms related and the terms from each other, so that we are always in danger of speaking of God without reference to the being he loves and that loves him; of speaking about religion or love of God as distinct from ethics or the love of neighbor.

The meaning of neither the sin nor the love could have been expressed in the meager terms of mere rational discourse.

This is true not because the church will necessarily feel itself bound by these terms (we are not to feel bound by any terms: God has not called us to bondage, but to freedom), but because what these terms stand for can not be translated into the language either of ordinary speech or of scientific and philosophical discourse.

Political discourse therefore is no less oriented, disoriented, and reoriented than any other form of discourse; and the specific way in which it is oriented and disoriented is that it becomes the place for the insertion of an impossible demand, a demand that we can validly interpret in utopian terms, meaning by this a quest that can not be exhausted by any program of action.

This question seems all the more legitimate to me in that, on the one hand, the philosopher can hardly discover or learn much from a level of discourse organized in terms of philosophy's own speculative categories, for he then discovers fragments borrowed from his own discourse and the travesty of this discourse that results from its authoritarian and opaque use.

We should begin to see at what point the notion of God's design — as may be suggested in different ways in each instance, it is true, by narrative, prophetic, and prescriptive discourse — is removed from any transcription in terms of a plan or program; in short, of finality and teleology.

The meaning of the term God circulates among all these modes of discourse, but escapes each one of them.

Whether one looks at a Church of South India congregation in the «Harijan Wadi» of a village in Chittoor District of Andhra Pradesh, or at a New Life Pentecostal congregation in the suburbs of Mumbai, whether one looks at a Syrian Orthodox community in Chungom, Kottayam, or at a Mizo Presbyterian Church in Mission Veng in Aizwal, whether one looks at the worshipers at the Indian mass celebrated at the National Biblical Catechetical and Liturgical Centre in Bangalore, or at a newly set up Baptist congregation among former estate workers in the Andaman and Nicobar islands, one thing that would strike even the most impartial observer is the reality of hybridity, hybridity which manifests itself not only in things external, but very often in terms of attitudes, thought - processes and historical self - understanding within the overall identity discourse.

In turn, the very idea of inspiration, as arising from meditation on the Holy Spirit, is deprived of the enrichment it might receive from those forms of discourse which are less easily interpreted in terms of a voice behind a voice or of a double author of scripture.

Consider the term «point» as it is used in the discourse of pure geometry.

What John promised and hinted at in the farewell discourse and what Luke described as a somewhat impersonal power in Acts, Paul described in terms of intimate personal relationship.

People wishing to talk together across religious frontiers have been finding that their conceptions of one another's faiths, their capacity to explicate their own faiths in terms that can be understood by outsiders, and the concepts of mutual discourse available to them jointly, are inadequate.

This meaning of «religion» needs to be kept in mind along with others, but in most discourse it functions more as one of the characteristics that may or may not be present than as the decisive basis of use of the term.

In practical terms these claims are challenged both by the rapid recent development of democracy and human rights in several East Asian societies and by social activist and scholarly discourses which challenge these claims directly.

But the term «postmodernism» became current outside this general discourse, within artistic and literary criticism, and in this other more specialized discourse, the «modernism» to which «post -» was prefixed has meant the sensibility that emerged in the arts around the turn of the present century, in deliberate rejection of the world shaped by Enlightenment and Romanticism, i.e., of the world otherwise called «modern.»

As you have read me state, in Jesus» discourse with Martha, a strict identification is made between the terms «Christ» and «Son of God» with «the One who guarantees eternal life and resurrection to the believer».

In a structure of thought dominated, as secular humanism's is, by the strict opposition of «human intelligence» to «divine guidance» and by the insistence that any reference to a transcendent reality is meaningless, obviously most traditional religious terms are going to be missing from respectable discourse (or mentioned only to be demeaned)....

Tying that concept to the by - now outmoded and pointless discourse of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, Lasch thinks it is too anemic, too sentimental a term.

All discourses on the short - and long - term future of the Spurs are wrapped up tightly in the cloth of Kawhi.

First, the term acquired distinct meaning in the late «90s domestic political discourse of Hungary and is specifically used to describe thinking and politics associated with neoliberal economic policies and a set of progressive social and cultural ideas.

In much conventional economic discourse we approach enterprises primarily in terms of one measure: profitability.

My point is that the Labour blogosphere is too uncritical of the government on civil liberties - that, in your terms, it contributes to the «political culture and dominant political discourses» that are the driver of the problem, rather than contesting this culture and these discourses.