Instead it is an explanation of visual structure, of the ways in which certain visual elements have been arranged and function within a composition. Strictly speaking, subject is not considered and neither is historical or cultural context. The purest formal analysis is limited to what the viewer sees. Because it explains how the eye is led through a work, this kind of description provides a solid foundation for other types of analysis.
References and Further Reading 1. Introduction Faith and reason are both sources of authority upon which beliefs can rest. Reason generally is understood as the principles for a methodological inquiry, whether intellectual, moral, aesthetic, or religious. Thus is it not simply the rules of logical inference or the embodied wisdom of a tradition or authority.
Some kind of algorithmic demonstrability is ordinarily presupposed. Once demonstrated, a proposition or claim is ordinarily understood to be justified as true or authoritative.
Faith, on the other hand, involves a stance toward some claim that is not, at least presently, demonstrable by reason. Thus faith is a kind of attitude of trust or assent.
As such, it is ordinarily understood to involve an act of will or a commitment on the part of the believer. Religious faith involves a belief that makes some kind of either an implicit or explicit reference to a transcendent source.
The basis for a person's faith usually is understood to come from the authority of revelation. Revelation is either direct, through some kind of direct infusion, or indirect, usually from the testimony of an other.
The religious beliefs that are the objects of faith can thus be divided into those what are in fact strictly demonstrable scienta and those that inform a believer's virtuous practices sapientia. Religious faith is of two kinds: The former views faith as closely coordinated with demonstrable truths; the latter more strictly as an act of the will of the religious believer alone.
The former includes evidence garnered from the testimony and works of other believers. It is, however, possible to hold a religious belief simply on the basis either of faith alone or of reason alone.
Moreover, one can even lack faith in God or deny His existence, but still find solace in the practice of religion. The basic impetus for the problem of faith and reason comes from the fact that the revelation or set of revelations on which most religions are based is usually described and interpreted in sacred pronouncements, either in an oral tradition or canonical writings, backed by some kind of divine authority.
These writings or oral traditions are usually presented in the literary forms of narrative, parable, or discourse. As such, they are in some measure immune from rational critique and evaluation. In fact even the attempt to verify religious beliefs rationally can be seen as a kind of category mistake.
Yet most religious traditions allow and even encourage some kind of rational examination of their beliefs. The key philosophical issue regarding the problem of faith and reason is to work out how the authority of faith and the authority of reason interrelate in the process by which a religious belief is justified or established as true or justified.
Four basic models of interaction are possible. Here the aims, objects, or methods of reason and faith seem to be very much the same. Thus when they seem to be saying different things, there is genuine rivalry.
This model is thus assumed both by religious fundamentalists, who resolve the rivalry on the side of faith, and scientific naturalistswho resolve it on the side of reason. Here the aims, objects, and methods of reason and faith are understood to be distinct. Compartmentalization of each is possible.
Reason aims at empirical truth; religion aims at divine truths. Thus no rivalry exists between them. This model subdivides further into three subdivisions. First, one can hold faith is transrational, inasmuch as it is higher than reason.
This latter strategy has been employed by some Christian existentialists. Reason can only reconstruct what is already implicit in faith or religious practice. Second, one can hold that religious belief is irrational, thus not subject to rational evaluation at all.
This is the position taken ordinarily by those who adopt negative theology, the method that assumes that all speculation about God can only arrive at what God is not.Summary of hierarchical regressio n analysis for perceived reality Second, the relationship between reality TV exposure and television may differentially influence audience’s attitudes and perception.
Therefore. She kicked the ball” or “grasped the subject” stimulates the leg or arm brain regions related to kicking or grasping. “Wet behind the ears” triggers brain regions of the sense of wetness and the ears, as well as the language centers. Reality. Reality is a consciousness.
program (hologram, simulation, illusion, dream) created by digital codes.. Numbers, numeric codes, define our existence and experiences. Human DNA, our genetic memory, triggers (remembers) by digital codes at specific times and frequencies as we experience.
lack of adequacy to reality and lack of logical constraints (oniric, hallucinatory led to postulate their intimate relationship. Finke's () work in represents the Chapter 4: Relationships between imagery and perception. In Ancient Greece, scenes of frenetic, satirical copulations were depicted on vases, when at the same time the ideal love was of a platonic nature.
Perception is a confrontation between an inward directed vector of external reality compelling awareness and an outward-directed vector of physiological, cultural, and psychological transformation. Where these vectors clash, where they balance each other, is what we perceive.