No subscription or hidden extras
Read through the most famous quotes by topic #phil
Man's destructive hand spares nothing that lives; he kills to feed himself, he kills to clothe himself, he kills to adorn himself, he kills to attack, he kills to defend himself, he kills to instruct himself, he kills to amuse himself, he kills for the sake of killing. Proud and terrible king, he wants everything and nothing resists him... from the lamb he tears its guts and makes his harp resound... from the wolf his most deadly tooth to polish his pretty works of art; from the elephant his tusks to make a toy for his child - his table is covered with corpses... And who [in this general carnage] will exterminate him who exterminates all others? Himself. It is man who is charged with the slaughter of man... So it is accomplished... the great law of the violent destruction of living creatures. The whole earth, perpetually steeped in blood, is nothing but a vast altar upon which all that is living must be sacrificed without end, without measure, without pause, until the consummation of things, until evil is extinct, until the death of death. ↗
Cependant mon père fut atteint d'une maladie qui le conduisit en peu de jours au tombeau. II expira dans mes bras. J'appris à connaître la mort sur les lèvres de celui qui m'avait donné la vie. Cette impression fut grande; elle dure encore. C'est la première fois que l'immortalité de l'âme s'est présentée clairement à mes yeux. Je ne pus croire que ce corps inanimé était en moi l'auteur de la pensée: je sentis qu'elle me devait venir d'une autre source; et dans une sainte douleur qui approchait de la joie, j'espérai me rejoindre un jour à l'esprit de mon père. ↗
Paranormalists, however, insist that our minds are transmitters that, with special effort, can focus like lasers to communicate across great distances, and even make things happen. That may seem far-fetched, but it's also a definition of prayer. ↗
The command of our language is crucial to focusing our thoughts and communicating them with precision to others. ↗
Let us being again. To take some examples: why should “literature” still designate that which already breaks away from literature—away from what has always been conceived and signified under that name—or that which, not merely escaping literature, implacably destroys it? (Posed in these terms, the question would already be caught in the assurance of a certain fore-knowledge: can “what has always been conceived and signified under that name” be considered fundamentally homogeneous, univocal, or nonconflictual?) To take other examples: what historical and strategic function should henceforth be assigned to the quotation marks, whether visible or invisible, which transform this into a “book,” or which still make the deconstruction of philosophy into a “philosophical discourse”? ↗
