Sentences with phrase «things as principles»

Some groups have expanded their codes to include such things as principles for diversity.

Not exact matches

It's one thing to be high - minded about your journalistic principles, but it's another to do so while outlets like CNN are raking in billions of dollars for their wall - to - wall Trump coverage, and you are trying to keep the lights on as your ad revenue vanishes with breathtaking speed.

Similarly, an organization is going to want to draw upon the relevant ethical principles, as well as its own basic ethical structure, consisting of things like its Code of Ethics and its Mission, Vision, and Values statements.

The closest Harford gets to bullet points is coining three «Palchinsky principles» that underpin Adapt's argument: «First, seek out new ideas and try new things; second, when trying something new, do it on a scale where failure is survivable; third, seek out feedback and learn from your mistakes as you go along.»

While the black swan events can temporarily hurt your principle, as we saw even with things like 9 - 11, and LTCM, stock markets eventually recover their losses.

As you can see, each are so different from each other, yet the same principle applies throughout, it just depends on what sort of thing the investment company wants to spend their money on.

A polemicist might well have salty things to say about this abdication of moral principles that Christians have held since the earliest days of the faith, but in Wilcox's mild and irenic diction the mainline churches are simply «accommodationist,» espousing what he calls a «Golden Rule Christianity» that honors tolerance, kindness, and social justice as paramount virtues.

one of the definitions of religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith» As noted above Atheism is none of these things.

Well, he could have made happiness really easy to attain - and if he's God, he's all powerful so he could have changed the principles of «value» to doing make things that are easy just as worthy.

Redefining who is included in the community of rights - bearing individuals so as to exclude the unborn is not the principled thing to do.

Either one recognises the priority of reason, of creative Reason that is at the beginning of all things and is the principle of all things — the priority of reason is also the priority of freedom -, or one holds the priority of the irrational, inasmuch as everything that functions on our earth and in our lives would be only accidental, marginal, an irrational result — reason would be a product of irrationality.

The same point appears in The Logic of Sense as follows: «disjunction posed as a synthesis exchanges its theological principle for a diabolic principle,» ensuring that «instead of certain number of predicates being excluded from a thing in virtue of the identity of its concept, each «thing» opens itself up to the infinity of predicates through which it passes, as it loses its center, that is, its identity as concept or as self» (LS 176 and 174).

But the Americans of the U.S. accomplished both these things, and in the cleverest way imaginable — calmly, legally, philanthropically, without bloodshed and, so far as the world could see, without violating a single great moral principle.

The Christian must indeed see things as they are, but he will not derive his principles of action from them.

Even if all parties were to agree that American republicanism is not classically liberal, or that classical liberalism really is ontologically indifferent, or that the laws of nature and of nature's God are the foundation of constitutional order and that these are the same thing as natural law — even if, in other words, all parties were to agree to some version of a pristine American founding harmonious in principle with the truth of God and the human being — returning to the first principles of the eighteenth century isn't much more realistic than a return to the first principles of the thirteenth.

His «ontological principle» precludes that, for according to it, «actual entities» must be regarded as the only real things; all forms therefore can exist only as forms of entities in which they are grounded.

A philosopher notes three areas in which linguistic philosophy could broaden itself: 16 (1) broaden the verifiability principle so as to make other experiences besides sense experience possible, (2) abandon the viewpoint that would reduce all meaning of things to present or actual fact, and (3) pay more attention to conceptual frameworks through which we seek to apprehend the world.

But if I do not have the condition (and this is our assumption, in order not to be forced back on the Socratic order of things) all my willing is of no avail; although as soon as the condition is given, the Socratic principle will again apply.

«28 This principle expresses Wordsworth's experience of «that mysterious presence of surrounding things, which imposes itself on any separate element that we set up as individual for its own sake.

Actual entities are the final real things of which the world is made, and Whitehead's ontological principle can be summarized as: no actual entity, then no reason for anything whatsoever.

As much as I've tried, and tried I have, I can not dismiss or deny this principle that has infected and affected every person and thing on this planeAs much as I've tried, and tried I have, I can not dismiss or deny this principle that has infected and affected every person and thing on this planeas I've tried, and tried I have, I can not dismiss or deny this principle that has infected and affected every person and thing on this planet.

19) of the Posterior Analytics, where Aristotle describes how the mind ascends to the first principles on which all science is grounded, he points out that the immediate point of departure of the inductive movement is not mere sense perception, but «experience»: «So from perception there comes memory, as we call it, and from memory (when it occurs often in connection with the same thing), experience; for memories that are many in number form a single experience.

As we seek to learn why bad things happen in this world, we are looking at several principles of a theological chaos theory.

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.

In the last analysis, there is no such thing as a disembodied reason; no principles of order — in logic, science, epistemology, even in ethics or aesthetics — have any reality except what they derive from one or more actualities whose active characters they express.

There are religions of adjustment, as we might call them, that begin not with the felicity principle but with the reality principle and admonish us to adjust our lives to the brute fact that things are not as we would like them to be.

I'm sorry to say that this country was founded on christian principles and that will never change — people of other faiths will have to sacrifice, as we always have — some things never change.

Behind the mystery of the physical laws that govern the universe, the beginning of the cosmos, time, gravity, and everything, as well as wonder of evolution and the rise of biological life, I tend to see some unknown principle or thing (perhaps unknowable) that lies behind it all.

The ethical framework for biological science must be based on the same principles of truth and meaning by which we as Christians judge all things, material and spiritual.

Form: This is, as said above, the principle of actuality in existing things.

Ronald Knox's words, «there exists among mankind a sort of rough, commonsense metaphysic which demands as its first postulate the existence of a divine principle in things.»

Given Whitehead's general principle of reciprocity (of the interconnectedness of all things) we are more than justified in concluding that nature possesses structures analogous to those which we find present in mind (though the exact nature of those structures must remain open to particular investigation, that is, they must be discovered through specialized modes of inquiry such as those of the special sciences).

So it might seem to me that my Buddhist interlocutor has crazed views about impermanence, the transience of all things, and the absence of any enduring principle that constitutes the identity of human persons; while I have more sensible metaphysical views that require a substance - based ontology and a theory as to what constitutes human persons that permits them to endure through time.

It is a case of the lay mind versus the professional, the latter seeking a formula which means different things to different groups, as a basis of common action; the former saying that common action now calls for a more precise definition of principles.

In the case of a civilized society, the principles of «order» and «genetic propagation» are no less fundamental as regards its status as an existent thing than are those same principles required of a Society per se.

For as regards infra - human living things, even on the suppositions already mentioned, the question is probably still open, or has not yet been sufficiently subjected to examination, whether the living substantial formal principle of what in the metaphysical sense would be a real species (biological category, etc.), is multiplied with the individuals of the species (biological group, etc.), or is one and the same principle which, unfolding its formative power at various material points in space and time, manifests itself more than once in space and time.

«16 The result of such a principle is inevitable conflict and frustration as multiple agents decide things every moment.

In spite of much that still needs to be done, we had better rejoice and be thankful, not only for more comfortable living with the vast range of things technology has produced, but for more recognition of race and sex equality and advances toward implementation of these principles; better education; better health; minimum wage, unemployment and social security provisions; and a large network of social agencies that we sometimes fume at as being bureaucratic and expensive but which few of us would want to see abolished.

He is «the principle of concretion» who by his «decision» has established the good which is in the order of things as it is.

Power is predicated of God not as something really distinct from His knowledge and will, but as differing from them logically; inasmuch as power implies a notion of a principle putting into execution what the will commands, and what knowledge directs, which three things in God are identified.

In the same manner, we may conceive God as necessary because of all things in the abstract pole of his reality, for he is the principle of possibility of all things; but he is also the contingent effect of all things in his concrete pole, because his actuality changes with every changing actual state of the world.

When the Protestant Reformation appeared, it criticized many things about the priesthood and monasticism as these had developed, but it did not question the monoepiscopal principle; that is, that any Christian community should have a general overseer or supervisor.

Why else did the Founders place as their central political principle the protection of individual rights but if not to allow the individual to pursue and achieve these things?

According to Roger Ames (NAT 117), an «aesthetic order» is a paradigm that: (1) proposes plurality as prior to unity and disjunction to conjunction, so that all particulars possess real and unique individuality; (2) focuses on the unique perspective of concrete particulars as the source of emergent harmony and unity in all interrelationships; (3) entails movement away from any universal characteristic to concrete particular detail; (4) apprehends movement and change in the natural order as a processive act of «disclosure» — and hence describable in qualitative language; (5) perceives that nothing is predetermined by preassigned principles, so that creativity is apprehended in the natural order, in contrast to being determined by God or chance; and (6) understands «rightness» to mean the degree to which a thing or event expresses, in its emergence toward novelty as this exists in tension with the unity of nature, an aesthetically pleasing order.

But as obnoxious as they are, they aren't trying to do things like make ancient theological thought, much of which is of neolithic vintage, the guiding principle for modern society's legal system.

The process - relational model of God as the most extensive exemplification of primordial creativity, with every worldly occasion in its own process of becoming; the process - relational concept of God as the principle of order channeling the world's becoming toward ever richer and more harmonious experience (the primordial nature); and the process - relational concept of God's preservation of every worldly occasion in God's own everlasting becoming (the consequent nature), with each such occasion evaluated and positioned for its greatest possible contribution to the divine life — these perspectives on divine reality which process - relational thought claims to find exemplified in the very nature of things are separately and together congruent with and supportive of the biblical images and events which describe the «already» in inaugurated eschatology.»

I thank Fr Simon Hayes for his constructive response (letters, June 2014) to my positing of «mind as a metaphysical first principle» such that «being - known - by - mind is a relationship constitutive of and causative of a creaturely thing».

The one great thing about the Buddhists is they got away from self - interest as the principle.

We should then expect either a condition of «no change» beyond simple elements, surviving very nicely as principles of intense energy, or else a riot of physical «mutations» having neither «survival value» nor any principle of control by «survival value», a Universe in which so stable and inelastic a thing as complex life could not survive.

The analysis of «things» into «societies» of more ultimate units can be considered as his thoroughgoing attempt to push on toward natural entities in Aristotle's sense — even where Aristotle on the basis of bare perception could, despite his principles, see only a more or less amorphous, passive «matter.»