No subscription or hidden extras
Read through the most famous quotes by topic #philosophic
It was also Hegel who established the view that the different philosophic systems that we find in history are to be comprehended in terms of development and that they are generally one-sided because they owe their origins to a reaction against what has gone before. ↗
A declaration of the independence of America, and the sovereignty of the United STates was drawn by the ingenious and philosophic pen of Thomas Jefferson, Esquire, a delegate from the state of Virginia. ↗
There may be some truth (atheists) do not need to believe in a god to be good, but then if they do not believe in a god, who do they believe gives the Universal Law of following good and shunning evil? Obviously, mankind. But then that is a dangerous thing, for if a man does not believe in a god capable of giving perfect laws, he is in the position of declaring all laws come from man, and as man is imperfect, he can declare that as fallible men make imperfect laws, he can pick and choose what he wishes to follow, that which, in his own mind seems good. He does not believe in divine retribution, therefore he can also declare his own morality contrary to what the divine may decree simply because he believes there is no divine decree. He may follow his every whim and passion, declaring it to be good when it may be very evil, for he like all men is imperfect, so how can he tell what is verily good? The atheist is in danger of mistaking vice for good and consequently follow another slave master and tyrant, his own physical and mental weakness. Evil would be wittingly or unwittingly perpetrated, therefore, to recognise the existence of a perfect divine being that gives perfect Universal Laws is much better than not to believe in a god, for if there is a perfect god, they will not allow their laws to be broken with impunity as in the case with many corrupt judges on earth, but will punish accordingly in due time. Therefore, to be pious and reverent is the surest path to true freedom as a perfect god will give perfect laws to prevent all manner of slavery, tyranny and moral wantonness, even if we do not understand why they are good laws at times. ↗
My mother delayed my enrollment in the Fascist scouts, the Balilla, as long as possible, firstly because she did not want me to learn how to handle weapons, but also because the meetings that were then held on Sunday mornings (before the Fascist Saturday was instituted) consisted mostly of a Mass in the scouts' chapel. When I had to be enrolled as part of my school duties, she asked that I be excused from the Mass; this was impossible for disciplinary reasons, but my mother saw to it that the chaplain and the commander were aware that I was not a Catholic and that I should not be asked to perform any external acts of devotion in church. In short, I often found myself in situations different from others, looked on as if I were some strange animal. I do not think this harmed me: one gets used to persisting in one's habits, to finding oneself isolated for good reasons, to putting up with the discomfort that this causes, to finding the right way to hold on to positions which are not shared by the majority. But above all I grew up tolerant of others' opinions, particularly in the field of religion, remembering how irksome it was to hear myself mocked because I did not follow the majority's beliefs. And at the same time I have remained totally devoid of that taste for anticlericalism which is so common in those who are educated surrounded by religion. I have insisted on setting down these memories because I see that many non-believing friends let their children have a religious education 'so as not to give them complexes', 'so that they don't feel different from the others.' I believe that this behavior displays a lack of courage which is totally damaging pedagogically. Why should a young child not begin to understand that you can face a small amount of discomfort in order to stay faithful to an idea? And in any case, who said that young people should not have complexes? Complexes arise through a natural attrition with the reality that surrounds us, and when you have complexes you try to overcome them. Life is in fact nothing but this triumphing over one's own complexes, without which the formation of a character and personality does not happen. ↗
I got interested in the idea that love is often used as a kind of blanket explanation for things. I mean, battered wives, for instance: "Why did you go back to him?" "Oh, I loved him." "Why did you embezzle fifteen million pounds and run away to the other side of the world?" "Oh, well, because I was in love." All that and then you don't ask anything else. I thought if I just say, these people needed love and they found it, then it kind of explained it away. I wanted to look at their behaviour and how love can inspire the best and the very worst in human behaviour but love itself is not behaviour. So I avoided the word 'love' until the very end and it's the last word in the novel. I wanted to explore what people will do when they're in such terrible need of love. If there was a big idea then that was it. Then, of course, I hope that if it's a story worth reading it's the characters themselves who make you want to read it, not the big idea. I don't think a big idea drives a novel usually. Something else has to engage you on a much more kind of personal level. ↗
إن القناع الذى يغلف الإنسان ليس ثيابه وحدها, فجلده ثوب آخر.. ولحمه وعظمه كلها ثياب.. أما هو نفسه, فبعيد.. بعيد.. تحت هذه الأقمشة السميكة من اللحم والدم. ↗
Solitude led to retrospective thinking, and if the past is what you are trying to get away from, then constant distractions in the present are needed. ↗
انطلاقاً من آلية التفكير بالأصل، التي تؤسس للعجز العربي الراهن، من خلال تدشينها لنظام العقل التابع، إنما تجد ما يؤسسها في قلب البناء الأصولي لكل من الشافعي والأشعري، فإن هذه القراءة تجادل بأنه لا سبيل للانفلات من عوائق تلك الآلية، وآثارها التي لا تزال تتداعى حتى اليوم, استبداداً وتبعية، إلا عبر ارتداد بما يقوم وراء أصول الرائدين الكبيرين من الشرط المتعالي والمجاوز الذي جرى الإيهام بأنه - وليس سواه - هو ما يقوم وراءها، إلى الشرط الإنساني المتعيّن الذي يكاد - منفرداً - أن يحدد بناءها ويفسره، والذى تتجاوب فيه - على نحو مدهش - كل أبعاد الواقع الإنساني وعناصره، من النفسي والاجتماعي والسياسي والمعرفي. وبقدر ما يؤكد هذا التجاوب على إنسانية الشرط الذي انبثقت في إطاره أصول الرائدين، وبما ارتبط بها من آليات وطرائق في التفكير، فإنه يقطع - بذلك - بإمكان تجاوزها الانفلات من سطوتها. وهنا، يلزم التنويه بأن هذه القراءة لا تسعى إلى إنجاز ما هو أكثر من التاكيد على إمكان هذا الارتداد من "المتعالي" إلى "الإنساني ↗
