Sentences with phrase «what human freedom»

So the infrahuman levels have a say as to what human freedom is.

But it is not yet clear what human freedom is as such.

Still, in the end, there is a limit to what human freedom can do.

Not exact matches

Indeed, a lead investigator in the Canadian Human Rights Committee was asked what value he placed on freedom of speech, to which he replied «Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value.freedom of speech, to which he replied «Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value.Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value.»

What I've written is for the benefit of others who actually give a damn about personal freedoms and human rights.

What you're giving up is your freedom to think for yourself by accepting this fantasy man - in - the - sky BS that has somehow managed to propagate throughout the centuries of modern human existence.

We humans tend to instinctively hold on to what is familiar, and resist moving into the unknown, not trusting that it can be a place of greater freedom and happiness.

If so, what does that mean for Machiavelli's project to expand the realm of human freedom — of effectual manipulation?

The loss of traditional, collective, and ritualistic forms of life and the loss of a transcendent horizon are accompanied by the loss of spontaneous and contingent forms of human action» what we might call freedom, if the word had not been so severely abused.

First, Griffin himself acknowledges that the Plantingan can only allow the occasional violation of human freedom, and there is no way for us to know to what extent God has profitably violated human freedom already.

It is unliveable at the level of society: hence, in Britain we have a government that lauds the freedom of the individual (and it should be noted in passing, but noted very well, that our present generation of politicians rarely talk of the «human person» or just of the «person», but usually of the «individual») but which has brought in some of the most draconian legislation in Europe designed to control what people say and do on certain issues so that society can proceed in its life as a unity and not just as a mere collection of individuals.

Our humanity is what tells us what freedom means to humans.

It is in this context that academic freedom finds meaning — it supports a plurality of voices and traditions (past and present) when debating what vision of human life maximizes flourishing, which is the ongoing project of any society that seeks to perpetuate itself.

For what exhilarates us human creatures more than freedom, more than the glory of achievement, is the joy of finding and surrendering to a Beauty greater than man, the rapture of being possessed.

What needs to be asked is how men and women can live in this culture filled with sexual symbols, sharing in the new freedom, and discover the creativity and satisfaction of authentic human love.

But if you insist then I would say, Lahwla Walaqwa Alla Bilah, and then thank you for helping me to know and understand that those things you call for are not possible and all just ink on paper, unreal and just was and is being used for what is called propaganda and that all we will harvest being over here are flags in the name of practicing your human rights or your freedom of speech.

Wonder about what we hear regarding human rights and human freedom of speech and expression that being purred down our heads and now when I am here just got here to be heard I am told not to be here?

The religious objections have mostly aimed to protect God's sovereign freedom to do what He pleases with his creation, a freedom which, the dissenters argue, would be limited by the existence of universal and unbreakable laws of nature, or indeed of inevitable laws of history or human behaviour.

If we win the political struggle, we will not even know what we want unless we have a new vision of man, a new sense of human possibility, and a new conception of the ordering of liberty, the constitution of freedom.

We live in an age whose chief moral value has been determined, by overwhelming consensus, to be the absolute liberty of personal volition, the power of each of us to choose what he or she believes, wants, needs, or must possess; our culturally most persuasive models of human freedom are unambiguously voluntarist and, in a rather debased and degraded way, Promethean; the will, we believe, is sovereign because unpremised, free because spontaneous, and this is the highest good.

What I gleaned from these pages, in part, is that for Kierkegaard the roots of the comic lie in the inherent contradictoriness of human nature: soul and body, freedom and necessity, the angelic and the bestial, eternity and temporality, and so on.

What we have here, it seems, is a deep conflict of visions or understandings of human rights and religious freedom.

In what human rights activists have called a backwards step for internet freedom, Judge Hassouna Tawfiq ordered the government to block access to the video - sharing website for 30 days after the trailer for Innocence of Muslims sparked outrage.

Also central to her book is the contention that in their opposition to the totalitarian Roman state, «Christians forged the basis for what would become, centuries later, the western ideas of freedom and of the infinite value of each human life.»

It is simply that, given our different views of human nature, human freedom, ecclesiastical authority, and the significance of historical events, we simply differ on what makes religious sense.

We are reminded, time and again, that what human beings do with their freedom matters, even when, like James, they choose paths that are no longer easily understandable to most readers, renouncing worldly values for the sake of something «harder to define.»

Human potentiality is not toward becoming divine, but toward so responding to the divine initiative that the Self - Expressive Activity of God would have what Athanasius styled an organon — a personal instrument open to employment by God but with full human freedom retained — adequate for the divine purHuman potentiality is not toward becoming divine, but toward so responding to the divine initiative that the Self - Expressive Activity of God would have what Athanasius styled an organon — a personal instrument open to employment by God but with full human freedom retained — adequate for the divine purhuman freedom retained — adequate for the divine purpose.

But it does not for a moment negate our creaturely freedom, to which we have made reference, nor does it minimize human dignity and responsibility for what is done in the world.

What we see in the Syrian tradition is a Christianity which in its understanding of human nature was eager to preserve the freedom of the human being and a certain degree of self - reliance, thereby laying strong emphasis on ethical power and the sense of responsibility.

(The longing for freedom, or the desire to realize oneself as an autonomous whole, is another way of saying the desire to be divine and thus to belong to or be identified with what is real, with what is beyond human construction and human domination.

They are certainly recognised in Western legal systems and... worldview (s); however... (human) consciousness... can not itself actively determine what is good and what is evil (and)... these freedoms are essentially thought of as mere individual prerogatives.»

What she offers is a message that is a guarantee of community solidarity, human dignity and authentic freedom.

He showed that we can exercise freedom not just by being in control but also by consenting to our limits and surrendering to what is beyond human control.

What Goodwin, Heilbroner, Galbraith et al. are telling us is that unless we change our moral guidelines so that «material possibilities» are «totally devoted to the enrichment of human life,» the pendulum of history will swing from freedom to totalitarianism.

Granted that there are limits to human freedom, what of the person who can know, and feel, and do otherwise than he does?

Most of the issues related to the Bible and warfare (warfare seems to be what history is made of and there are usually multiple causes and interpretations for each conflict) had to do with power struggles (also the most human of all endeavors) and perhaps doctrinal issues of freedom related to these power struggles.

To answer the question whether God is a threat to human freedom, we must first ask the question what it is to be free, what the forces are that we must conquer to attain freedom.

Indeed, I am inclined to think that the so - called punishment is not really a newly instituted condition that a willful God introduces against the human grain, but rather a making clear of just what it means to have chosen enlightenment and freedom, just what it means to be a rational being.

In human experience we can not but believe that although much of what we are each moment is simply the result of the past, in each moment there is also some freedom.

If God has made a terrible bargain with himself not to override our human freedom, then on what basis does he decide when and how to send the Prince of Peace again?

True, Ivan's Christ has offered the world freedom, which the world has forsaken for bread, but what Ivan leaves out of his «respondeo» to his brother is that Christ by his crucifixion has also offered the world the divine exemplar of suffering, the one interpretation of the mystery of human suffering that can stand up to Ivan's withering attack.

Things like the priest scandals are CLEAR indications of what happens when we look the other way and consider freedom to believe in something more important than basic human rights.

He said: «What we are seeing in Iraq violates brutally people's right to freedom of religion and belief, as set out under Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

What then does revelation mean in terms of this more restrictive notion of history and human freedom?

It seems to me that it is profoundly necessary, profoundly human, to seek a perfect world — that is what our freedom is for.

In view of the ambiguity of what was going on in the struggles, the task of the Christian churches was to say «yes» to that which conformed to the Kingdom of God, as revealed to humankind in the life of Jesus Christ, and to say «no» to that which distorted the dignity and freedom of human beings and all that is alive.

But in what does human freedom consist if by our own free will without God's grace nobody can take one step towards being justifed?

If the self that acts or thinks were a part of what is experienced, then Koestler believes we could not affirm human freedom.

Part Two, «Mind and Order,» treats the broader question of what is meant by «order» and how order is related to the human experience of purposive freedom.

Is human volition, which gives freedom to fix what otherwise would remain indeterminate, an exception in the natural order, or does freedom belong to Being?