ellauri016.html on line 554: However, a form of snobbery can be adopted by someone not a part of that group; a pseudo-intellectual, a celebrity worshipper, and a poor person idolizing money and the rich are types of snobs who do not base their snobbery on their personal attributes.[citation needed] Such a snob idolizes and imitates, if possible, the manners, worldview, and lifestyle of a classification of people to which they aspire, but do not belong, and to which they may never belong (wealthy, famous, intellectual, beautiful, etc.).[citation needed]
ellauri063.html on line 114: So, Marxist (and Leninist) socialism itself hasn't failed; it just hasn't been road-tested yet. No one knows if it will work, but there are good reasons to suppose it won't. We are still waiting for the second coming of Karl. Marxism is a revolutionary worldview that must always struggle for new revelations. Rosa Luxemburg.
ellauri080.html on line 486: This is the primary basis for the philosophical conflicts between Fe/Ti and Te/Fi. This is demonstrated nicely by two quotes from famous philosophers representing each worldview:
ellauri080.html on line 498: These two views of the world are, of course, mutually inimical — they inevitably chase each other’s tails. Nietzsche says to Hume: ‘he stole that bread because he wanted to feed his family,’ to which Hume replies, ‘yes, that is true: but why did he want to feed his family? Because he is adhering to a familial principle,’ to which Nietzsche replies, ‘I suppose you could put it that way, but why is he operating according to that principle? It’s because he wants to, because he loves his family,’ to which Hume replies, ‘yes, but why does he love his family? It’s because that is his logical worldview…’ And so on.
ellauri089.html on line 116: There's no gap between will and action, for Heinlein's juveniles adulthood is devotion to something they want to do. This is the origin of the books' guilelessness—for that worldview is innocence, down at its root, even when the grand theme of a book is slavery, war, or survival in harsh circumstances. Being human isn't an insoluble problem for them. It's a puzzle that has a solution: be juvenile. What made Robert Heinlein inimitable was the easiness of the people in those stories.
ellauri094.html on line 378: We shouldn’t miss that worldviews are at play even with the skeptic’s objection to Christianity. The worldview of the author of the Skeptic Annotated Bible actually doesn’t even allow for such a thing as the law of non-contradiction to be meaningful and intelligible. In other words for him to try to disprove the Bible by pointing out that there’s a Bible contradiction doesn’t even make sense within his own worldview. Check out our post “Skeptic Annotated Bible Author’s Self-Defeating Worldview.” Read also Stanford's bit on contradictory beliefs here. Lisää aiheesta:
ellauri097.html on line 483: It really is an issue of consistency of worldviews here, as you can see. But I think a more precise understanding of the teleological argument and the is-ought fallacy helps us to answer the original challenge the caller had.
ellauri102.html on line 425: She has attributed her change in worldview to two catalysts. One was when she was 17 and preparing for the University of Toronto, her mother had a stroke and became severely disabled. Naomi, her father, and her brother took care of Bonnie through the period in hospital and at home, making educational sacrifices to do so. That year off prevented her "from being such a brat". The next year, after beginning her studies at the University of Toronto, the second catalyst occurred: the 1989 École Polytechnique massacre of female engineering students, which proved to be a wake-up call to feminism.
ellauri119.html on line 682: The "good" guys in her novels are basically paranoid sociopaths but her book´s view the world through their eyes and, of course, they don´t notice anything wrong with their distorted worldview. Humans are social animals and having interdependencies is the norm. Ayn Rand takes the normal and using the views of a sociopath portrays those interdependencies as being corrupt, evil, and self defeating. This is consistent in all of her writings. I´ve read everything Any Rand wrote and some of what has been written by her direction.
ellauri119.html on line 684: She is good at writing a thriller novel and carries a hypnotic theme that keeps the reader absorbed and lends to a subtle brainwashing/indoctrination toward her worldview. That doesn´t make it right, just believable, and, unfortunately, too many people think that believable means it is true. Believable just means that you can be fooled.
ellauri132.html on line 665: Eikä, palkinto-Booker oli joku riistäjä Booker McConnell Karibialta. In 1972, winning writer John Berger, known for his Marxist worldview, protested during his acceptance speech against Booker McConnell. He blamed Booker's 130 years of sugar production in the Caribbean for the region's modern poverty.
ellauri151.html on line 526:

1. What are the general logic and the presuppositions of the problem of evil? 2. How can the problem of evil be called into question and how can one develop grammatical methods and philosophical tools to build a successful antitheodicy? 3. How can one develop a grammatical metacritique of the presuppositions of the problem through a philosophical grammar of the underlying language/world and being/meaning-links? 4. How can the grammatical approach to metaphysical questions and to the metacritique of the presuppositions of the problem of evil be used to analyse religious and worldview questions, and articulate ways of existential, humanistic and religious sense-making that overcome the problem?
ellauri152.html on line 745: The Haskalah, often termed Jewish Enlightenment (Hebrew: השכלה‎; literally, "wisdom", "erudition" or "education"), was an intellectual movement among the Jews of Central and Eastern Europe, with certain influence on those in Western Europe and the Muslim world. It arose as a defined ideological worldview during the 1770s, and its last stage ended around 1881, with the rise of Jewish nationalism. However, according to Salo Baron, it actually began a century earlier in the "Dutch and Italian Haskalah."
ellauri153.html on line 395: theodicism as a metatheory for the Christian worldview. In effect, they follow the religious
ellauri153.html on line 493: misunderstanding how worldviews offer practical perspectives for coping with the world. The
ellauri153.html on line 496: artistic and other practices, and the study of meaning of the world and of different worldviews’
ellauri153.html on line 554: Now that the problem of evil has been exposed as a conceptual confusion, the way is clear for a Jamesian science of religions and worldviews. The methods of grammatical description can be extended to the practices and ways of sense-making in different worldviews: how they give meaning to moral practices and how do they approach the intelligibility of the world? What practical responses do they have for coping with evil? For example, the grammar of seeing-as for models and metaphors can be applied to the metaphors in the Hebrew Bible for God’s activity to understand what it is to see the world as God’s creation. The grammar of virtues can be used to describe Buddhist practices and explore, how these approaches contribute to the human good. Similar approaches can be taken to secular worldviews as well. These descriptions can then be used to assess the worldviews through dialogical encounters between them. However, one thing should be clear. There is no point in devaluing the world by arguing for the meaninglessness of life or atheism on the basis of evil, or in giving justifications for evils that can stand in the way of divine or human meliorist projects of fighting for justice. To paraphrase the judgment of the Divine Judge in the Book of Job, such approaches are not even wrong. They are as meaningless as life itself.


ellauri155.html on line 884: Santayana is mostly known for aphorisms, such as "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it", "Only the dead have seen the end of war", and the definition of beauty as "pleasure objectified". Although an atheist, he treasured the Spanish Catholic values, practices, and worldview in which he was raised.] Santayana was a broad-ranging cultural critic spanning many disciplines. He was profoundly influenced by Spinoza´s life and thought; and, in many respects, was another Spinoza. Was he too a jew? I guess not. His father was a minor intellectual. His mother married a Bostonian merchant Sturgis who died. In Madrid, he married the Santayana guy. In 1869, Josefina Borrás de Santayana returned to Boston with her three Sturgis children, because she had promised her first husband to raise the children in the US. She left the six-year-old Jorge with his father in Spain. Jorge and his father followed her to Boston in 1872. His father, finding neither Boston nor his wife´s attitude to his liking, soon returned alone to Ávila, and remained there the rest of his life as a minor intellectual.
ellauri189.html on line 206: Malczewski’s worldview (Weltanschauung) seems at first sight very much akin to Schopenhauer’s metaphysical pessimism (the fact that the German philosopher’s main treatise Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung was almost neglected by his contemporaries, should not close our eyes to the fact that the first part of it was written immediately after the Napoleonic wars; it belongs to the same époque as Maria).
ellauri194.html on line 287: In the early 19th century, some Hasidic rabbis identified the French invasion of Russia under Napoleon as "The War of Gog and Magog". But as the century progressed, apocalyptic expectations receded as the populace in Europe began to adopt an increasingly secular worldview. This has not been the case in the United States, where a 2002 poll indicated that 59% of Americans believed the events predicted in the Book of Revelation would come to pass. During the Cold War the idea that Soviet Russia had the role of Gog gained popularity, since Ezekiel's words describing him as "prince of Meshek" – rosh meshek in Hebrew – sounded suspiciously like Russia and Moscow. Even some Russians took up the idea, apparently unconcerned by the implications ("Ancestors were found in the Bible, and that was enough"), as did Ronald Reagan.
ellauri222.html on line 747: Another aspect, which should be discussed, is perfectionism. The author emphasizes that such a worldview can be very dangerous if the person does not keep the sense of proportion, as it is with Lord Pococurante. He is not able to see the beauty of things that surround him. His criticism can be only destructive, though Pococurante identifies drawbacks; he does put forward any suggestions, which may prove useful.
ellauri236.html on line 106: It fits with Bannon's "larger worldview" of a "leftist conspiracy to steal the government from the right wing through illegitimate and fraudulent means" in elections around the world,
ellauri262.html on line 453: Personism is an ethical philosophy of personhood as typified by the thought of the utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer. It amounts to a branch of secular humanism with an emphasis on certain rights-criteria. Personists believe that rights are conferred to the extent that a creature is a person. Michael Tooley provides the relevant definition of a person, saying it is a creature that is "capable of desiring to continue as a subject of experience and other mental states". A worldview like secular humanism is personism when the empathy and values are extended to the extent that the creature is a person (apes get very similar rights, insects get vastly fewer rights, etc.).
ellauri264.html on line 194: The basis for Jacob‟s action becomes clearer when one examines his worldview. Jacob
ellauri283.html on line 114: Beyond the Heavens is a very ethereal and mystical experience, one unlike any other movie we have reviewed. However, this is not a good thing. The ‘plot’ is very unclear and murky, consisting of vague and meandering ideas and cryptic dialogue. It’s like Corbin Bernson is winking at the audience with every scene, waiting to reveal some great secret, but it’s never revealed. The whole has a very tip-of-the-tongue feel, like the characters know something you don’t but never intend to let you in on the secret. As the characters wax eloquent and philosophize about the true nature of reality, the viewer is left, in the end, with a more confusing view of reality than before. Is Bernson advocating for or against Darwinism? Is he a creationist? Does he really believe that angels come to earth on the tails of comets? Is Bernson suggesting that reality is not what it seems? If so, what is his view of reality? Only God knows the answers to these questions as Bernson spends 90 minutes toying with his ‘big reveal’ and dancing around whatever his philosophical worldview is. It’s basically just a waste of your time.
ellauri412.html on line 676: Look, if you’re reading the Bible as an atheist and asking about a reasonable interpretation, then the world is your oyster. You are not required to accept the worldview of the authors of the Bible, who all believed in God and wrote about Him from that perspective. And at the same time, as someone who does not believe God exists and does not accept the inspired nature or inerrancy of scripture, you have limited your possible interpretations of Scripture to only natural explanations that do not invoke God. This is going to cause significant problems with your use of the historical-grammatical method, which strives to discover the biblical author’s original intended meaning in the text. For example, every time Isaiah writes, “thus says the Lord” (which is a lot!), how will you interpret that? For an atheist, a statement like that either makes Isiah delusional (he believed a non-existent God told him something) or a charlatan (he’s knowingly asserting a false attribution).
ellauri412.html on line 690: But here’s the thing. In the atheist worldview, there is no such thing as objective evil. Few atheists have the courage to admit that, of course. Richard Dawkins is one. He wrote: “In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
xxx/ellauri104.html on line 702: Measures a negative or overly-critical worldview that is associated with an increased likelihood of impaired interpersonal relationships, hostility, anger, low trust, and workplace misconduct
xxx/ellauri200.html on line 184: Naipaul's fiction and especially his travel writing have been criticised for their allegedly unsympathetic portrayal of the Third World. The novelist Robert Harris has called Naipaul's portrayal of Africa racist and "repulsive," reminiscent of Oswald Mosley's fascism. Edward Said argued that Naipaul "allowed himself quite consciously to be turned into a witness for the Western prosecution", promoting what Said classified as "colonial mythologies about wogs and darkies". Said believed that Naipaul's worldview may be most salient in his book-length essay The Middle Passage (1962), composed following Naipaul's return to the Caribbean after 10 years of exile in England, and the work An Area of Darkness (1964).
29