Talk:Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
Did Chardin say any or all of the following (commonly attributed):- "The world belongs to those who give it greatest hope or The world belongs to those who bring to it the greatest hope or The world belongs to those who offer it hope or The world belongs to those who can offer it the greatest hope
'have to admit I never looked at the French version, but in good old P.T.de Chardin fashion I used my intuition and the first thing that came to mind and heart were the words of another poet, Emily Dickinson I believe said something in the order of :'Hope is the thing with feathers that perches in the soul; it sings the song without the words and never stops at all; I've heard it in the chillest lands and on the strangest seas yet never in extremity it asked a crumb of me.' That for me describes hope to a 'T'. And in that sense we can't 'bring', 'give' or 'offer' it to the world. As in our hearts I guess at best it has to be kindled or awakened. So, could it be that Teilhard tried to say:
'Those who awaken it's hope belong to the world.' ?
Thanks for bearing this with me, this is joe, over and out, AROHANUI
Everything That Rises, ...
Where's it from?
Wikiquote no longer allows unsourced quotations, and they are in process of being removed from our pages (see Wikiquote:Limits on quotations); but if you can provide a reliable, precise and verifiable source for any quote on this list please move it to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. --Antiquary 18:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- All abstract knowledge is a faded reality: this is because to understand the world is not enough, you must see it, touch it, live in its presence and drink the vital heat of existence in the very heart of reality.
- Great truths are felt before they are expressed.
- He that will believe only what he can fully comprehend must have a long head or a very short creed.
- In the final analysis, the questions of why bad things happen to good people transmutes itself into some very different questions, no longer asking why something happened, but asking how we will respond, what we intend to do now that it happened.
- In When Bad Things Happen to Good People (1981) Harold Kushner wrote (p. 197) "In the final analysis, the questions of why bad things happen to good people translates itself into some very different questions, no longer asking why something happened, but asking how we will respond, what we intend to do now that it happened" (note that Kushner used "translates" rather than "transmutes"). I don't know that he didn't plagarize it from de Chardin, but I was unable to find any similar quote in the latter's works. --Hughh (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Is the Kingdom of God a big family? Yes, in a sense it is. But in another sense it is a prodigious biological operation— that of the Redeeming Incarnation.
- It is not our heads or our bodies which we must bring together, but our hearts. . . . Humanity. . . is building its composite brain beneath our eyes. May it not be that tomorrow, through the logical and biological deepening of the movement drawing it together, it will find its heart, without which the ultimate wholeness of its power of unification can never be achieved?
- Love is the most powerful and still most unknown energy in the world.
- Nothing is precious except that part of you which is in other people, and that part of others which is in you. Up there, on high, everything is one.
- Our duty, as men and women is to proceed as if limits to our ability did not exist. We are collaborators in creation.
- variant: It is our duty as men and women to proceed as though the limits of our abilities do not exist.
- The Age of Nations is past. The task before us now, if we would not perish, is to build the Earth. from Building the Earth, Dimension Books 1965 p54
- The conclusion is always the same: love is the most powerful and still the most unknown energy of the world.
- The most satisfying thing in life is to have been able to give a large part of one's self to others.
- The resources at our disposal today, the powers that we have released, could not possibly be absorbed by the narrow system of individual or national units which the architects of the human earth have hitherto used. The age of nations has passed. Now, unless we wish to perish we must shake off our old prejudices and build the earth. The more scientifically I regard the world, the less can I see any possible biological future for it except the active consciousness of its unity.
- These perspectives will appear absurd to those who don't see that life is, from its origins, groping, adventurous, and dangerous. But these perspectives will grow, like an irresistible idea on the horizon of new generations.
- The whole of life lies in the verb seeing.
- To love is to approach each other center to center.
- We are one, after all, you and I, together we suffer, together exist, and forever will recreate each other.
- We can envisage a world whose constantly increasing 'leisure' and heightened interest would find their vital issue in fathoming everything, trying everything, extending everything ; …a world in which, as happens already, one gives one's life to be and to know, rather than to possess. That, on an estimate of the forces engaged, is what is being relentlessly prepared for us.
- What we are aware of is only the nucleus which is ourselves. The interaction of souls would be incomprehensible if some Aura did not extend from one to the other, something proper to each one and common to all.
Protected from anon edits for a month 2015·03·13
I have protected this article from anonymous edits for a month, because valid sourced quotes were being removed without clear reason. One valid removal which actually did present a reason in an edit summary is this:
- Our century is probably more religious than any other. How could it fail to be, with such problems to be solved? The only trouble is that it has not yet found a God it can adore.
I have only found this as being cited to The Phenomenon of Man in A Belief System from Beyond the Box (2009) by Edgar K. DeJean, p. 111, and find no indication that this is a genuine quote. IF this was a widespread misquotation I would probably have put it in a a "Disputed" section, but with only 29 - 50 or so occurrences found on the web at this point, I don’t believe it merits that much note, but am posting it here, so that anyone who seeks clarifications of the issue might come across these remarks. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 17:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Messiness of the "Disputed" section
Is the disputed section supposed to look so jarring and messy? I understand it's important for the reader to understand the high probability that the selected phrase is inauthentic and has been misattributed, but as is it reads like a brash highlight and an indignant scribble in the margins of what was otherwise a well-polished article.
Is it alright to go ahead and clean that up?