February 9

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

Quotes of the day from previous years:

2004
Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength. ~ Eric Hoffer
2005
My life has been a tapestry of rich and royal hue,
An everlasting vision of the everchanging view,
A wondrous woven magic in bits of blue and gold,
A tapestry to feel and see, impossible to hold.

~ Carole King (born 9 February 1942)
2006
Does it really matter what these affectionate people do — so long as they don’t do it in the streets and frighten the horses? ~ Mrs Patrick Campbell (born 9 February 1865)
2007
Belief may be no more, in the end, than a source of energy, like a battery which one clips into an idea to make it run. ~ J. M. Coetzee
2008
You've got to get up every morning with a smile in your face
And show the world all the love in your heart
The people gonna treat you better,
You're gonna find, yes you will,
That you're beautiful as you feel.

~ Carole King ~
2009
I have seen the truth; I have seen and I know that people can be beautiful and happy without losing the power of living on earth. I will not and cannot believe that evil is the normal condition of mankind. And it is just this faith of mine that they laugh at. But how can I help believing it? I have seen the truth — it is not as though I had invented it with my mind, I have seen it, seen it, and the living image of it has filled my soul for ever. ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
2010
I am a ridiculous man. They call me a madman now. That would be a distinct rise in my social position were it not that they still regard me as being as ridiculous as ever. But that does not make me angry any more. They are all dear to me now even while they laugh at me — yes, even then they are for some reason particularly dear to me. I shouldn't have minded laughing with them — not at myself, of course, but because I love them — had I not felt so sad as I looked at them. I feel sad because they do not know the truth, whereas I know it. Oh, how hard it is to be the only man to know the truth! But they won't understand that. No, they will not understand. ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
2011
Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.
I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them. ~ Ecclesiastes
2012
To study the meaning of man and of life — I am making significant progress here. I have faith in myself. Man is a mystery: if you spend your entire life trying to puzzle it out, then do not say that you have wasted your time. I occupy myself with this mystery, because I want to be a man.

~ Fyodor Dostoevsky ~

2013
It is not as a child that I believe and confess Jesus Christ. My hosanna is born of a furnace of doubt.
~ Fyodor Dostoyevsky ~
  • proposed by Fys
2014
You just call out my name
And you know wherever I am
I'll come runnin' to see you again
Winter, Spring, Summer or Fall,
All you have to do is call
And I'll be there
You've got a friend.
~ Carole King ~
2015 
Rank or add further suggestions…

Ranking system:

4 : Excellent - should definitely be used.
3 : Very Good - strong desire to see it used.
2 : Good - some desire to see it used.
1 : Acceptable - but with no particular desire to see it used.
0 : Not acceptable - not appropriate for use as a quote of the day.


Suggestions[edit]

To care only for well-being seems to me positively ill-bred. Whether it’s good or bad, it is sometimes very pleasant, too, to smash things. ~ Fyodor Dostoyevsky, (died 9 February, 1881). (Notes from the Underground)

  • 4. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • 1 Kalki 03:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC) 2 Kalki 23:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC) but now leaning toward a zero. I simply do not consider this very appropriate as a WIkiquote quote of the day.
  • 4 because Dostoyevsky says it the way humans feel it. Excellent, sometimes it is better to get the anger out. I love this quote. Zarbon 22:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The ideas Dostoyevsky presents are actually far more complex than this quote indicates. Your very high opinion of brutal impulses exhibits what to me seems a very low opinion of humankind, and leaves me with a very low opinion of you, and your capacity to learn much. Smashing things merely for the delight of it can be very pleasant to fools, but the only thing a truly wise person seeks to smash are the delusions which keep fools smashing each others lives and truly beautiful accomplishments in needless ways. ~ Kalki 19:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Your interpretation sounds almost exactly like something that Mohandas a.k.a. Mahatma Gandhi would say. Or to a lesser extent, Jesus. Sometimes, turning the cheek is not the appropriate thing to do. Sometimes, action comes from being brutal. Sometimes, it's nice to admit that ferocity can be pleasing. Do you want to know what's most disturbing? The fact that you'd override someone else's suggestion along with mine...two ratings of 4...which you of course shouldn't just based on your personal beliefs. I believe it's all good and fine to preach love and pleasantries to the extent that you do, but I also think that you shouldn't neglect an entire medium just based on your own opinion. If FYS sees this as a good suggestion, and I agree with it, maybe you should think farther than your own understanding to try and find some meaning as to why it's so powerful; hence the power behind the message that revenge is sweet, a dish best served cold, and even furthermore, why this quote holds such beauty. - Zarbon 01:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You suggest I should "find some meaning as to why it's so powerful" — I actually do not disagree at all with Dostoyevsky's observation that "To care only for well-being seems to me positively ill-bred" if one applies this to concern for personal well-being, as opposed to society's well-being, and also recognize that "Whether it’s good or bad, it is sometimes very pleasant, too, to smash things" is an impressive statement, especially to such fools who have extended their motivations but little beyond the infantile. But I also realize he is making far more complex and involved points than anything this brief comment properly indicates. And I would point out that this statement does not in any way mention "turning the other cheek" it mentions simply smashing things for the delight of smashing them.

In regard to your dismissive allusions, I will state that I am quite capable and strong enough to often "turn the other cheek" — but I am by no means an advocate of always doing so, and I believe you will find that I am also quite capable and willing to smash away at various forms of profound stupidity in very powerful ways when I choose to do so. And not merely because it gives me satisfaction, though I won't deny that it sometimes does — but because I truly believe that in some circumstances which can exist, that is the best way to fight some particular form of stupidity. I usually aim to be as gentle as possible and only as harsh as necessary with most people, especially those who are fair and honest, but it is a practice I can usually extend even to such profound idiots as seem to prefer to be as harsh as possible and only as gentle as necessary.

Extending the above passage beyond the briefly quoted portion one sees that Dostoyevsky is making an argument not merely for indulging of personal impulses, one might find circumstantially pleasant, but having a respect for deeper and more profound impulses, including a capacity and will to suffer. I do not agree with all Dostoyevsky or his characters say — but I know his thoughts, his reason, and his emotions reach to far more profound and truly insightful levels than I have ever seen much evidence of yours doing:

Is not reason in error as regards advantage? Does not man, perhaps, love something besides well-being? Perhaps he is just as fond of suffering? Perhaps suffering is just as great a benefit to him as well-being? Man is sometimes extraordinarily, passionately, in love with suffering, and that is a fact. There is no need to appeal to universal history to prove that; only ask yourself, if you are a man and have lived at all. As far as my personal opinion is concerned, to care only for well-being seems to me positively ill-bred. Whether it's good or bad, it is sometimes very pleasant, too, to smash things. I hold no brief for suffering nor for well-being either. I am standing for … my caprice, and for its being guaranteed to me when necessary. Suffering would be out of place in vaudevilles, for instance; I know that. In the "Palace of Crystal" it is unthinkable; suffering means doubt, negation, and what would be the good of a "palace of crystal" if there could be any doubt about it? And yet I think man will never renounce real suffering, that is, destruction and chaos. Why, suffering is the sole origin of consciousness. Though I did lay it down at the beginning that consciousness is the greatest misfortune for man, yet I know man prizes it and would not give it up for any satisfaction. Consciousness, for instance, is infinitely superior to twice two makes four. Once you have mathematical certainty there is nothing left to do or to understand. There will be nothing left but to bottle up your five senses and plunge into contemplation.

As to using my own discretion in the final selection of another quote rather than this one, when it had two 4s, I would point out that you rather constanly seek to give undue weight to your preferences by giving low rankings to what are mostly highly ranked quotes of others, and now have the gall to whine and complain that I had the boldness to do so in this particular regard and to significantly diminish the ranked standing of two 4's with a 1. I have always recognized and asserted that you have the right to honestly express your opinions — even though you seem to gravitate to nonsensical nihilistic and absurdly authoritarian stances which I abhor, and I have always also maintained that I have the right to express mine, and to indicate, honestly, that I can have very little respect for many of those which you seem to embrace ardently.

I might possibly be more inclined to rank this quote even as high as a 2 if it were extended to slightly more context to this level of inclusion:

As far as my personal opinion is concerned, to care only for well-being seems to me positively ill-bred. Whether it's good or bad, it is sometimes very pleasant, too, to smash things. I hold no brief for suffering nor for well-being either. I am standing for … my caprice, and for its being guaranteed to me when necessary.

Fys has not weighed in on the matter since first making the suggestion, but I stated some of my objections to the quote as-it-stands very clearly, and I remain very inclined to going further than my presently ranking it (as it stands) merely at 1, and ranking it 0, as you often do to many quotes you don't want to see used, for nearly any reason, or no stated reason at all. To summarize my reasons: as I stated previously, the portion selected actually gives a very poor indication of Dostoyevsky's overall thoughts. ~ Kalki 03:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That sentence is still the most powerful from that entire paragraph. I believe the message in there is that sometimes it's best to rid yourself of suffering through "smashing" or, as you put it, things you "abhor". I'm not surprised you abhor what I love, I wouldn't expect you to have the same feeling for what I find powerful and enigmatic. But that doesn't mean that others won't. Also, what astonishes me is that you can actually compare idiocy with supremacy, childish behavior with one's love for authoritarianism, and/or infantile behavior with the entire concept behind releasing one's anger. There's absolutely none of those emotions/feelings emitted by these quotations. They aren't infantile. In fact, they are genuine in that they are the derivations of Darwinism in their masked camouflage, which to me, is absolutely beautiful. Best put, something beautiful to me, may be disgusting to you and vice versa. When it comes to this specific quotation though, I believe it's most compelling when kept in its short format my dear comrade, hence it would lose its fervor if it were elongated. - Zarbon 05:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
You state "That sentence is still the most powerful from that entire paragraph" — I have conceded that it is striking — but taken alone, it is neither coherent nor representational of the points Dostoyevsky is actually making, and certainly not any expression of profound wisdom.
I will not refrain from asserting that the arguments and statements you present now and in the past are such as I have found to have little coherence or lucidity, and sometimes have perceived to be disingenuous and outright deceptions and lies, as seems to be in accord as with some of the nihilistic notions you seem to embrace.
You state that it astonishes you that I compare "idiocy with supremacy, childish behavior with one's love for authoritarianism, and/or infantile behavior with the entire concept behind releasing one's anger" — I will state flatly that your absurd notions of "supremacy" seem to me to be consummately idiotic, authoritarianism consummately childish, and the need to release one's anger in entirely destructive ways as entirely infantile.
I must also confess that I can have very little idea of what convoluted notions of things you might be embracing when you state such things as "they are genuine in that they are the derivations of Darwinism in their masked camouflage, which to me, is absolutely beautiful." And I do wish you'd stop calling me "dear comrade." I'd much rather be regularly be called a goddamned fool, by people of far more social appeal than you seem to posses (because I know myself to in very many ways be one, but I still am not so much a fool as you seem to be, with the presumptive and incoherent declarations you seem inclined to make). You seem to have often confused me with someone who is advocating the notion that all is "sweetness and light" — or that it should be. I like dwelling on much that is either sweet or light in many ways — but I have no delusions that such are the only qualities to be found in people or the world, or that they ever will be. ~ Kalki 08:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I really wish you'd stop the name-calling. The word "idiotic" really doesn't appeal to me and I really don't think it would appeal to anyone in their right mind. You can tell a lot about a person based on how he treats others. Also, I don't appreciate you calling me a "fool" either. Or comparing myself to you. Or calling my declarations "incoherent". Or anything else of that nature. All people are unique because of their differences. If everyone was to agree about everything; if I agreed with you about all your assumptions, then we'd be a programmed mechanism, no more, no less. All I said was I don't enjoy how you yourself like to pursue on a constant basis the "dwelling on much that is either sweet or light in many ways". I would never limit myself to that. I never said you should agree with me, I just mean that you should ALLOW all forms of thought to pass, not just the ones you feel inclined to believe. It's moreso about acceptance than anything. And I don't see anything wrong with the word "comrade". It's certainly nicer than "fool", "idiot", and "incoherent" as you seem to freely abuse language of that caliber without any remorse. I have not once insulted you. I have disagreed with your ideology, or set forth a notion that contradicts your beliefs, but I have truly never insulted you. - Zarbon 05:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
It is often far less of an insult to people's intelligence and potentials for worth to state plainly and bluntly what one actually believes about matters in dispute than to tiptoe about with insincere or shallow shows of niceties towards such behavior or ideas as one considers to be among the most truly vicious and deceitful as can be harbored by the human mind, whether openly or disguisedly. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 21:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • 0 Ningauble 16:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC) — Not suitable for Quote of the Day because the intent is lost without a great deal of context. It can be rewarding to contemplate this sort of observation by existentialists such as Dostoyevsky when one is following the development of ideas in which it is used, or knows where it is leading, but presenting it out-of-the-blue as a Quote of the Day is inappropriate. The problem is explicitly illustrated by this quote being championed by one who evidently disagrees strongly with Dostoyevsky's conclusions, his resolution to the existential crisis. (I would like to assume this is due to being unfamiliar with the ideas, rather than an intention to misrepresent them.) ~ Ningauble 16:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Truth is not spoken in anger. Truth is spoken, if it ever comes to be spoken, in love. ~ J. M. Coetzee

  • 3 Kalki 23:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC) with a strong lean toward 4.
  • 1 Zarbon 22:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 3 InvisibleSun 23:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • 1.5 Only true for "wise people". N6n 03:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky

  • 3 Kalki 20:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC) with a lean toward 4.
  • 2 Zarbon 22:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 2 InvisibleSun 23:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • 2 N6n 03:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ain't it good to know that you've got a friend
When people can be so cold
They'll hurt you, yes, and desert you
And take your soul if you let them
Oh, but don't you let them.
~ Carole King ~

  • 3 Kalki 19:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC) with a lean toward 4.
  • 3 InvisibleSun 23:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • 1 Zarbon 01:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • 3 N6n 03:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Although he devoted hours of each day to his new discipline, he finds its first premise, as enunciated in the Communications 101 handbook, preposterous: 'Human society has created language in order that we may communicate our thoughts, feelings, and intentions to each other.' His own opinion, which he does not air, is that the origins of speech lie in song, and the origins of song in the need to fill out with sound the overlarge and rather empty human soul. ~ J. M. Coetzee


If you want to be respected by others the great thing is to respect yourself. Only by that, only by self-respect will you compel others to respect you. ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky