Hence, older ways of
thinking about human existence are in need of a very thorough reconception.
And when he was
thinking about human existence itself, he was intent upon saying that a whole human person was compounded of body as well as of soul; in the end, he said, the two would be reunited after the separation which death had brought about.
Not exact matches
God has given us much evidence of His
existence: how
about the intricacies of how the
human body works - can you really believe that happened without a master plan; what
about the beauty of nature - can we really
think that that just happened; what
about the testimony of millions throughout the ages including Scientists attempting to disprove God, that point to things beyond their comprehension or doing.
In these quite different ways, something is being said
about a refreshment or enablement which is provided for
human existence; and something is also being said, even in a fashion which sometimes seems curiously negative (as in Indian religious
thought and observance),
about a relationship with a more ultimate and all - inclusive reality that establishes a kind of companionship between our own little life and the greater circumambient divine being.
As soon as one begins to
think about the basic issues of
human existence, one is faced with the question of where to turn to find a trustworthy guide.
... If our politicians were realists, they would
think rather less
about missiles and the problem of landing astronauts on the moon, rather more
about hunger and moral squalor and the problem of enabling three billion men, women, and children, who will soon be six billions, to lead a tolerably
human existence without, in the process, ruining and befouling their planetary environment.
I don't know
about you, but I would believe the people who study the
human mind,
thoughts, and behavior (i.e. psychologists and sociologists), over someone who says there's some spooky external agent that no one can possibly verify the
existence of, and which has no consistent pattern of action with which to use as evidence for verification.
But for our present purpose, it is enough to say that when we are
thinking about the last things, our
thought must include much more than
human existence and
human personality in its body - mind totality, even in its social relationships.
Whatever we perceive to be the truth
about God, I
think there is some things we all can agree on, believers and anyone who doesn't believe in the
existence of God and that is that it is self evident that all are born equal and with dignity and it's best if everyone relate to each other as part of the
human family.
But there is also a third option — one that appreciates the primacy of faith in the order of
human thought, recognizes the role played by tradition and authority in all forms of inquiry, and understands that the work of the university is ultimately dependent upon several démodé beliefs
about the dignity of mankind and the
existence of a Creator.
On an ontological level, process
thought suggests that this experience of
human existence as relational is not an exception to all other forms of
existence, but is an exemplification of what
existence is
about.
I had never
thought about reducing waste before, just assumed it was an inevitable product of
human existence.
Ultimately, I
think Phantom Thread is
about control,
about how we
humans are very good at turning even the very basic needs of
existence — food and shelter and clothing and love — into opportunities to jockey for position, show off our brilliance, and exert our will on the universe.
But I
think truths
about society and
human existence can be approached in different ways.
I am not a subscriber to the «great Man'theory of history, I favour the idea that the pressures of
human desire, experience and history culminate occasionally in one individual whose socio - historical importance is inevitably (as
humans) defined through the base circumstances of their physical and temporal
existence (i.e. the thing we
think first
about Einstein is the hair and the tongue, right?).
Since a commenter mentioned the medieval vineyards in England, I've been engaged on a quixotic quest to discover the truth
about the oft - cited, but seldom
thought through, claim that the
existence of said vineyards a thousand years ago implies that a «Medieval Warm Period «was obviously warmer than the current climate (and by implication that
human - caused global warming is not occuring).
Debates
about the
existence and start date of the Anthropocene are occurring alongside a revolution in
thinking about humans as uniquely social and technological beings.