Sentences with word «theorists»

When social psychologists, political theorists, or historians examine them, they do not stand up.

Why are we so often presented with just two options: either disavow God altogether or become conspiracy theorists?

This led a collective of online conspiracy theorists to posit that these weren't school shooting survivors at all, but rather «crisis actors» paid off by George Soros as part of some sort of elaborate plot to disarm America.

After all, if all these smarter - than - me theologians, theorists, academics, scholars, thinkers, and leaders on both sides of the issue haven't been able to put the debate to rest, what chance does a slim yellow book by a happy - clappy Canadian mama - writer have?

The Church entrusts itself to history; it can not and will not be reconstructed according to the abstract schemes or blueprints of theologians, clerical politicians, journalists and impatient theorists.

World - system theorists maintain that in today's world the contours of societal change on virtually every continent must be understood in terms of the dynamics of this larger system.

Contemporary language theorists have isolated several philosophically provocative linguistic components, portions of language which are logically and / or epistemologically problematic.

Rather than conceiving of modernization as moving happily toward greater prosperity and enlightenment for all, world - system theorists depict it as moving in fits and spurts, as a kind of Hobbesian drama.

Of course, theorists of natural law do not suppose that they can offer a complete account of «what life ought to be.»

But that basis is very narrow, and even it is strongly influenced by biblical traditions in ways seldom recognized by many natural - law theorists.

The common denominator in this work is a conviction that modernization and world - system theorists paint with too broad a theoretical brush.

If that influence is, as Madden asserts, «seldom recognized by many natural - law theorists,» perhaps my acknowledgment of it will help a little in setting the accounts straight.

Under liberalism, human beings increasingly live in a condition of autonomy such as that first imagined by theorists of the state of nature, except that the anarchy that threatens to develop from that purportedly natural condition is controlled and suppressed through the imposition of laws and the corresponding growth of the state.

According to world - system theorists, these relations began to emerge in the sixteenth century, chiefly as a result of international trade and diplomacy among the European states.

This is why Feuerbach is brought into the company of recent religious theorists.

John Rawls justified his particular constraints on public discourse in part by claiming that natural - law theorists («rationalist believers») deny «the fact of reasonable pluralism» when giving public reasons.

Adopting the insight of first - wave theorists, they extend to human nature itself the idea that nature is subject to human conquest.

What I have in mind here, though, is not the seemingly inevitable progression toward ever more complex cultural distinctions that has fascinated modernization theorists.

Where Descartes turned to the language of substance to explain certain philosophical problems, social theorists like Morton frequently establish a body / culture dualism in its place.

Should these gentlemen persuade judges that natural law is their domain, the theorists will find that they have merely given judges rein to lay down their own moral and political predilections as the law of the Constitution.

Recently, politicians and theorists have been striving to revive a liberal politics that is not about «identity,» especially not the kind of identity displayed on liberal college campuses.

Harvey concludes: «It is extraordinary how well Feuerbach's later views stand up when compared with those of contemporary theorists; so much so that one can, by adopting his position, mount important criticisms of these theories.»

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

It is the failure of the theorists she critiques to deal with some aspects of concrete experience, aspects to which Whiteheadians and feminists are, no doubt, particularly sensitive, to which she calls attention.

The critical difference between the two theorists — and it is important because it will distinguish Calvinist from utilitarian in 18th - century America — becomes evident when we consider how each of them explained such order and peace as does prevail in worldly society.

In fact, he finds something wholesome, and in keeping with «old - fashioned» wonder at the marvelous complexity in the work of nature, in the work of Intelligent Design theorists.

Yet she also thinks that the framework employed by codependence theorists shapes conclusions that are ultimately one - sided.

In the radically individualistic claims made for privacy by many liberal theorists, we see the introduction of a dangerous idea of autonomy or practical self - sufficiency into political discourse.

When modern theorists envisage man as a being who knows what he wants, or who at least possesses an «unconscious» that knows for him, they may simply have failed to perceive the domain in which human uncertainty is most extreme.

Furthermore, I think we tend to underestimate how detrimental no - fault divorce actually is; repealing it would have ameliorative effects both culturally (say goodbye to the «two consenting adults» - theorists) and empirically.

Proponents of the view that there is no such presumption (George Weigel, James Turner Johnson, and others) assert with vigor that the classical theorists from Augustine onwards assumed that engaging in war was among the proper and ordinary functions of a legally constituted sovereign authority.

That's the job of the professor, according to many influential theorists who belong to the MLA.

Such a view of the intellectual life is quite at odds with one dominant nowadays among educators or theorists of education.

This step draws on the assertions of psychological theorists such as Jean Baker Miller and Carol Gilligan who assert that the strength of women is in their sense of relationship with others.

From David Hume and Edmund Burke to Michael Oakeshott and Friedrich Hayek (each of whom is amply represented and thoughtfully commented upon in this book) conservative theorists have criticized «contractualist» and «constructivist» approaches to political life that ignore the dependence of the social fabric upon institutions, customs, and habits that are not the product of human design.

Uniting so many of these new voices, it, seems, is not a theory of hermeneutics, much less a revised correlational method for theology, but a new hermeneutical practice that actualizes that theory and that method better than many of the theorists do.

This conception of just war was passed to the early modern age and known and used by such theorists as the Neoscholastics Vitoria, Soto, Molina, and Suarez, by the Protestant Reformer Martin Luther, the Puritan theologian William Ames, the theologically trained jurist Hugo Grotius, and others at the dawn of the modern era.

With respect to the word «separatism,» Raymond encounters the problem of definition of a term which is used in a variety of ways among feminist theorists.

Although from initial impressions I have a hard time telling the difference between Klien and many right wing cospiracy theorists, other than starting point of course.

Thus we find examples of the just war tradition in theorists of the law of nations and in positive international law; we have a form of this tradition in modern military codes, rules of engagement, and praxis; and two of the most important theorists of just war over the past forty years have been the Protestant theologian Paul Ramsey and the political philosopher Michael Walzer.

Second, Aquinas» conception of just war was the reference point for later theorists at the beginning of the modern era, including both Catholic theorists such as Vitoria, Molina, Soto, and Suarez, and Protestants such as Luther, Ames, and Grotius.

Yet, in the end, nearly all theorists lean toward one of these two positions, simply because legal theory (unlike, say, literary theory) must finally guide the decisions by actual judges of actual cases.

Consequently, legal theorists quite understandably feel impelled to tell us in the end how the cases should come out.

One of the ugliest characteristics of the fake news trend is the tendency for conspiracy theorists to turn actual tragedies into click - bait fiction.

The theorists developed a view of marital love that integrated these diverse goods and held them together.

David Brooks has a column in today's NYT about how some evolutionary theorists try to force random evolution into a form that can explain human moral agency.

Biblical scholars, anthropologists and literary theorists were quick to apply these approaches to the Bible.

The interesting thing that a lot of folks forget is that Marx emerged among of variety of 19th century philosophers and political theorists in Western Europe called «socialists» and was certainly not the first.

The great Christian theorists of marriage, such as Augustine, Aquinas and Luther, had multidimensional misunderstandings of those goods.

Social theorists today seem largely unaware of any such distinction, and this is why they pay so little attention to solitude.