Sentences with phrase «what human society»

Although at any instant, human society is dependent on natural process to function, the instance of those dependencies are not what human society is predicated on.

«Trying to balance that all out, trying to relate it to what human society wants and is willing to pay for, and how to deal with houses in the middle of that is an important issue.

It speaks to what human society is and can be.

Some people, who don't understand what a human society means, and simply want one that is efficient and scientific, see it the other way round.

Not exact matches

In 2016, 26 percent of employers surveyed by industry nonprofit the Society for Human Resource Management offer paid maternity leave beyond what's covered by short - term disability or state law.

In our human society, gossip is «what makes human society as we know it possible,» according to Dunbar.

The fact is that the issues you speak of are not because the people are members of the LDS church but in fact this is what happens in any society of humans living as close together as we do in large cities.

Humans have had no problem «flourishing» throughout human history with societies that have used a variety of definitions for what we would call «marriage», «love» and «normal».

My assessment is that the wider disorientation of Western society, the decreasing respect for many institutions and the disdain for humans alongside what Christopher Lasch has termed a «culture of narcissism» has played out both among the «spiritual but not religious» identifiers as well as among many «new atheists.»

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.

De Waal recently published a book called «The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primates,» which synthesizes evidence that there are biological roots in human fairness, and explores what that means for the role of religion in human societies.

The Sacred Cow of today's society is what could be described as «human autonomy»; the «right» of the individual to do what he or she likes — whenever, wherever...

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.

It describes a duty of society to retreat and give its members space to act on what they deem essential; an acknowledgment not of a human liberty or right, but of a human obligation that precedes the social obligation and so shapes it.

What availed as the common wisdom of mankind until the day before yesterday — for example, that man, woman, mother, and father name natural realities as well as social roles, that children issue naturally from their union, that the marital union of man and woman is the foundation of human society and provides the optimal home for the flourishing of children — all this is now regarded by many as obsolete and even hopelessly bigoted, as court after court, demonstrating that this revolution has profoundly transformed even the meaning of reason itself, has declared that this bygone wisdom now fails even to pass the minimum legal threshold of rational cogency.

In redefining marriage and the family, the state not only embarks on an unprecedented expansion of its powers into realms heretofore considered prior to or outside its reach, and not only does it usurp functions and prerogatives once performed by intermediary associations within civil society, it also exercises these powers by tacitly redefining what the human being is and committing the nation to a decidedly post-Christian (and ultimately post-human) anthropology and philosophy of nature.

While we are called to love our neighbors and to maintain what James Davison Hunter has called «faithful presence,» no human society can be identified with the kingdom of God.

Multiply this many millionfold, and what results is a society in which there is not only continual clash between human wills but a continual state of rebellion against God.

We are beginning to feel the birth pangs of what could be a new form of human society — global society.

It certainly makes sense to speak of striving for greater approximation to such forms of organization in human societies, but in what sense did he suddenly interject those qualifications regarding natural process?

But this same society will have to answer an essential question: What is the authentic human life?

Theologically what it intends is obedience; that is, a genuine listening to the Word of God as spoken in particular situation; and always from the complexities of the human psyche or of human society.

I believe it is determined by society, and that societies tend to develop similar beliefs on what is right and wrong because humans are social creatures, pretty much incapable of surviving on their own in the wilderness (we are useless predators when unarmed).

josef: «What I'm saying is that society bases that on what is harmful to humans and what is beneficial to humWhat I'm saying is that society bases that on what is harmful to humans and what is beneficial to humwhat is harmful to humans and what is beneficial to humwhat is beneficial to humans.

And what sort of political arrangements, if any, are best for human societies?

What I'm saying is that society bases that on what is harmful to humans and what is beneficial to humWhat I'm saying is that society bases that on what is harmful to humans and what is beneficial to humwhat is harmful to humans and what is beneficial to humwhat is beneficial to humans.

Granted that religious forms and institutions, like other fields of human and cultural activity, are conditioned by the nature, atmosphere, and dynamics of a given society, to what extent does religion contribute to the cohesion of a social group and to the dynamics of its development and history?

Harnack reduced what he called «the essence of Christianity» to something very simple: the love of God, the love of one's neighbour, and incorporating into human society whatever Jesus taught about the Kingdom of God.

Any student of the Græco - Roman world at the beginning of our era who tries to penetrate beneath the surface of the political, economic and military history of the period and discern what was going on in the minds of men, becomes aware of a widespread expectation of a turn for the better in human affairs, even the dawn of a golden age, after the violent convulsions which had disturbed society for a century or more.

What is remarkable is the human capacity — in spite of this intensive societal indoctrination — to perceive where justice demands change, to discover that one's society or one's peers are morally wanting.

The community defined by these two concepts is what our human nature really craves, and what it must have if it is not to be in conflict with itself both within the individual and within society.

It does not reflect prevailing patterns of human behavior... If you look around carefully, you will see that most people are not really maximizers, but instead what you might call «satisfiers»: they want to satisfy their needs, and that means being in equilibrium with oneself, with other people, with society and with nature.

As we try to plan and direct the evolution of human society and its pluralistic values and styles, by what are we to be shaped and transformed?

The building block electronic and protonic actual occasions are, in the case of human beings, swept into vastly more complex, Chinese box - like sets of containing societies within which there are social levels that can be identified with cells, others which answer to Aristotle's levels of tissues and organs, and which finally are presided over by what Whitehead refers to as the regnant nexus, a social thread of complex temporal inheritance which, Whitehead suggests, wanders from part to part of the brain, is the seat of conscious direction of the organism as a whole, and answers to what in Plato and Aristotle is called the soul.

Basic human understanding of what is beneficial to the society around us, to the people we encounter... the morality that my beliefs hold me to... all of these things inform my understanding of what is good.

And does this also apply to all societies, to all civilizations, and to human history itself, namely, that these all, along with each human person, become self destructive to the measure that each is not committed to what is revealed in Christ?

What Whitehead offers to effect this particular translation of cosmology and sociology is the reintroduction of a theory of «social custom» to serve as the founding principle of order in human society.

That Whitehead should have borrowed from human experience the term «society» and then employed it systematically to refer to a certain type of «derivative existent» without intending any metaphysical implication in the context of human social affairs, would have been not only careless on his part, but what is worse, fraudulent.

These consequences are the more serious if we remember that our very humanity, as individuals, relies upon human society and what we receive from it.

Just as the ancients used the terms «wind» and «breath» metaphorically to refer to the invisible «spiritual» forces that operate in human societies and motivate their cultures, so we may need to draw upon such vague and indefinite terms in order to understand what is happening in this tradition.

First it requires us to find and describe what Tillich called the «boundary situations,» that is, those points where modern men and women reach the limits of their human existence, where they sense they are alienated from society and other people, or feel a lack of personal meaning, or fear being useless and having no worth.2.

We can dream of a perfectly balanced society, where the difference between individual initiative and solidarity are reduced to a simple state of tension, where human beings are judged because of what they are rather than the added - value they produce, where cultures are considered to be equally valid expressions of being and where scientific and technical progress is oriented towards the well - being of all rather than the enrichment of a few.

This world of ours is a new world, in which the unity of knowledge, the nature of human communities, the order of society, the order of ideas, the very notions of society and culture have changed and will not return to what they have been in the past.

They also need to be in conversation with those who work professionally to understand what is going on in our society: above all, those who pursue human science disciplines with philosophical responsibility.

In virtue of its comprehensiveness as a metaphysical category, therefore, the term society is much more suitable than the term substance to describe the various ontological totalities encountered in human experience.4 Yet this key insight into the ontological actuality of Whiteheadian societies is easily lost from view unless one ponders what Hegel was trying to express with the somewhat elusive notion of Spirit.

Finally, there is increased anxiety concerning climate change — with some environmentalists demonising human beings, consumer - based Western cultures castigating poorer nations for their waste and pollution, and little attempt to think more profoundly about what a more ecologically - aware approach to our world may demand from such societies.

What is the automatic reaction of human society to this process of compression?

As to the second part... again, Bob... maybe,... just maybe atheists, agnostics, some christians, and many from other religions, or not believe that what you evangelical theists believe about «gays» and what you are doing to minimize, criminalize, bully, torture,... create laws that show them as not being worthy enough in our society of having equal rights as human beings... maybe we think you guys are absolutely * wrong.

«This world of ours is a new world,» wrote Robert Oppenheimer in 1963, «in which the unity of knowledge, the nature of human communities, the order of society, the order of ideas, the very notions of society and culture have changed and will not return to what they have been in the past» (Saturday Review of Literature, June 29, 1963, p. 11).

It was a question that required examining our more fundamental views of what human life is for, and what role society plays.