Philosophy Quotes

बार्थ का दृष्टिकोण आस्था और अविश्‍वास के बीच या धर्मशास्त्र और अन्य मानव विज्ञानों के बीच संवाद की किसी भी संभावना को पूरी तरह खत्म कर देता है। धर्मशास्त्र बस वही कहता है जो धर्मग्रंथ में लिखा है, और बात वहीं खत्म हो जाती है।

Barth's approach tears up any possibility of dialogue between faith and unfaith or between theology and other human sciences. Theology just says what it says on the basis of scripture, and that's that.

Barth's approach tears up any possibility of dialogue between faith and unfaith or between theology and other human sciences. Theology just says what it says on the basis of scripture, and that's that.

व्याख्या एक ऐसा काम है जिसे हमें बार-बार उठाना पड़ता है और सिफिसस की तरह शुरुआत से फिर से शुरू करना पड़ता है। लेकिन, जैसा कि कामू ने कहा था, हमें सिफिसस को हमेशा खुशहाल कल्पना करना चाहिए, और जब बात ऐसे ग्रंथों की हो जो इंसान होने के महत्वपूर्ण सच को उजागर करते हैं, तो ऐसा करना इतना भी मुश्किल नहीं है।

Interpretation is a task that we repeatedly have to take up and start again from the beginning, Sisyphus-like. But, as Camus said, we must always imagine Sisyphus happy, and this is not so difficult when it's a matter of texts that reveal important truths about being human.

Interpretation is a task that we repeatedly have to take up and start again from the beginning, Sisyphus-like. But, as Camus said, we must always imagine Sisyphus happy, and this is not so difficult when it's a matter of texts that reveal important truths about being human.

लेकिन, जैसे-जैसे वह [कीर्केगार्ड] अपने उस मुकाम के करीब पहुंचते हैं जिसे हम उनके मसीहा-केंद्रित (Christocentric) चरम बिंदु कह सकते हैं, कई पाठक छूट जाते हैं। कई विद्वान उनके लेखन के उस हिस्से को छूते तक नहीं हैं।

But, inevitably, as he [Kierkegaard] approaches what we might call his Christocentric climax many readers drop off. Many scholars just leave that part of his authorship alone.

But, inevitably, as he [Kierkegaard] approaches what we might call his Christocentric climax many readers drop off. Many scholars just leave that part of his authorship alone.

संक्षेप में, मैं मृत्यु की तुलना में प्रेम को अर्थ का अधिक निर्णायक केंद्र मानता हूँ। हाइडेगर की दलील के लिहाज से, ऐसा इसलिए है क्योंकि मुझे लगता है कि वे दूसरों की मौत के महत्व को ठीक से नहीं समझ पाए और उन्होंने पूरा ध्यान सिर्फ अपनी मौत के साथ मेरे रिश्ते पर केंद्रित कर दिया। लेकिन वास्तव में, दूसरों की मौत हमारे जीवन पर इस कोरे खयाल से कहीं अधिक गहरा और तुरंत असर डालती है कि एक दिन मुझे भी मरना है।

In brief, I regard love as a more decisive focus of meaning than death. In terms of Heidegger's argument, this is because I think he misdescribes the importance of the deaths of others and focuses exclusively on my relation to my own death. But, in reality, the deaths of others have a more urgent and immediate impact on our lives than the purely notional knowledge that I too will one day die.

In brief, I regard love as a more decisive focus of meaning than death. In terms of Heidegger's argument, this is because I think he misdescribes the importance of the deaths of others and focuses exclusively on my relation to my own death. But, in reality, the deaths of others have a more urgent and immediate impact on our lives than the purely notional knowledge that I too will one day die.

लेकिन आखिर कोई धार्मिक व्यक्ति हाइडेगर जैसी रचना में क्यों रुचि लेगा, जिसे कई लोग शून्यवाद (nihilism) की पराकाष्ठा मानते हैं? सबसे पहले तो इसलिए, क्योंकि हाइडेगर हमें उन गिने-चुने दार्शनिकों की तरह सोचने पर मजबूर करते हैं कि हमारी मृत्युशीलता कितनी गंभीर और सर्वव्यापी है।

But why should a religious person be interested in a work like Heidegger's that many regard as the epitome of nihilism? For a start, because Heidegger forces us in a way that few philosophers do to really think through the seriousness and all-encompassing nature of our mortality.

But why should a religious person be interested in a work like Heidegger's that many regard as the epitome of nihilism? For a start, because Heidegger forces us in a way that few philosophers do to really think through the seriousness and all-encompassing nature of our mortality.

सैद्धांतिक स्तर पर, मुझे लगता है कि धर्म के प्रति प्रकृतिवादी (naturalist) दृष्टिकोण ऐसे सवाल उठाता है जिनमें मेरी कोई दिलचस्पी नहीं है। वे अपने दायरे में बिल्कुल सही हो सकते हैं, लेकिन वे इस वास्तविक अनुभव को नहीं छूते कि कैसे धर्म का कोई न कोई पहलू हमारी असल जिंदगी में सार्थक बन जाता है। चूँकि हम खुद इस जाँच के दायरे में हैं, इसलिए यह सब कुछ बदल देता है।

At a theoretical level, I think a naturalist approach to religion is just asking questions I'm not interested in. They're perfectly legitimate in their own terms, but they don't address the actual experience of how one or other aspect of religion becomes existentially meaningful to us in our actual lives. The fact that we ourselves are the subject of investigation makes all the difference.

At a theoretical level, I think a naturalist approach to religion is just asking questions I'm not interested in. They're perfectly legitimate in their own terms, but they don't address the actual experience of how one or other aspect of religion becomes existentially meaningful to us in our actual lives. The fact that we ourselves are the subject of investigation makes all the difference.

पचास साल पहले लोगों का यह पक्का विश्वास था कि वे उस 'नीले पक्षी' (खुशियों) की तलाश करने के हकदार हैं, जबकि आज उनका यह गलत मानना है कि वे उसे पकड़कर अपने घर ले जाने के हकदार हैं, वह भी महीने भर के दाने के साथ एक मानार्थ पिंजरे में... जो लोग सोचते हैं कि जिस चीज़ के पीछे भागने की उन्हें आज़ादी है, उसे पाने का भी उनका हक है, वे निराशा के ही गर्त में डूबेंगे। संक्षेप में यही हमारी पीढ़ी की सच्चाई है।

Fifty years ago people believed, accurately, that they were entitled to seek the blue bird, whereas today they believe, mistakenly, that they're entitled to find it and take it home, in a complimentary cage with a month's supply of birdseed....Those who think they've a right to catch whatever they are free to chase, are doomed to disappointment. That's our generation in a nutshell.

Fifty years ago people believed, accurately, that they were entitled to seek the blue bird, whereas today they believe, mistakenly, that they're entitled to find it and take it home, in a complimentary cage with a month's supply of birdseed....Those who think they've a right to catch whatever they are free to chase, are doomed to disappointment. That's our generation in a nutshell.

अज्ञानी व्यक्ति असाधारण चीज़ों को देखकर हैरान होता है; समझदार व्यक्ति सामान्य चीज़ों को देखकर चकित होता है; और सबसे बड़ा आश्चर्य तो प्रकृति का यह नियम है कि सब कुछ कितनी नियमितता से चलता है।

The ignorant man marvels at the exceptional; the wise man marvels at the common; the greatest wonder of all is the regularity of nature.

The ignorant man marvels at the exceptional; the wise man marvels at the common; the greatest wonder of all is the regularity of nature.

आप जानते ही हैं, चुनाव की यह प्राथमिक प्रक्रिया अपने आप में बहुत उलझन भरी है। लेकिन आखिरकार, मुझे लगता है कि विंस्टन चर्चिल की बात सही थी कि लोकतंत्र शासन की सबसे बुरी प्रणाली है, बशर्ते बाकी सभी को छोड़ दिया जाए। और उनकी यह बात, जिसे मैं पहले बहुत पैना और सटीक समझता था, हाल ही में मुझे कुछ इस तरह से समझ आई है कि, देखिए भाई, वे यह भी तो कह रहे हैं कि यह शासन की सबसे बुरी प्रणाली है—बाकी सभी को छोड़कर।

You know, the primary process itself is very confusing. But in the end, I guess I believe what Winston Churchill said, which is that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others. And that phrase of his, which I always have previously thought to be kind of acute, more recently I've thought of it in this way, to say well, you know what, he's also saying it's the worst form of government - except for all of the others.

You know, the primary process itself is very confusing. But in the end, I guess I believe what Winston Churchill said, which is that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others. And that phrase of his, which I always have previously thought to be kind of acute, more recently I've thought of it in this way, to say well, you know what, he's also saying it's the worst form of government - except for all of the others.

सातवें दिन भगवान ने आराम किया था। ज़रूर उनके पोते-पोती शहर से बाहर गए होंगे।

On the seventh day God rested. His grandchildren must have been out of town.

On the seventh day God rested. His grandchildren must have been out of town.

भले ही भगवान न हो, मैं उस भगवान में विश्वास करता हूँ जिसे हमने बनाया है।

Even if there isn't a God, I believe in the one we've created.

Even if there isn't a God, I believe in the one we've created.

हर आर्थिक राय कुछ मान्यताओं पर आधारित होती है।

Every economic opinion is associated with a set of assumptions.

Every economic opinion is associated with a set of assumptions.

एक जीवित जीव का अध्ययन दो अलग-अलग पहलुओं से किया जाना चाहिए। एक है कारण-विश्लेषण का पहलू, जो भ्रूण विज्ञान के लिए बहुत उपयोगी है। दूसरा है ऐतिहासिक-वर्णनात्मक पहलू, जो विकासवादी इतिहास की कड़ियों को सटीकता के साथ सुलझाता है। ये दोनों पहलू एक-दूसरे की घटनाओं के महत्व को समझने में मदद कर सकते हैं, लेकिन वे एक-दूसरे की जगह नहीं ले सकते।

A living organism must be studied from two distinct aspects. One of these is the causal-analytic aspect which is so fruitfully applicable to ontogeny. The other is the historical descriptive aspect which is unravelling lines of phylogeny with ever-increasing precision. Each of these aspects may make suggestions concerning the possible significance of events seen under the other, but does not explain or translate them into simpler terms.

A living organism must be studied from two distinct aspects. One of these is the causal-analytic aspect which is so fruitfully applicable to ontogeny. The other is the historical descriptive aspect which is unravelling lines of phylogeny with ever-increasing precision. Each of these aspects may make suggestions concerning the possible significance of events seen under the other, but does not explain or translate them into simpler terms.

लेकिन विज्ञान प्रकृति के उत्तरों का संग्रह है; जबकि मानविकी मनुष्य के विचारों का।

But science is the collection of nature's answers; the humanities the collection of men's thoughts.

But science is the collection of nature's answers; the humanities the collection of men's thoughts.

जो लोग शायद ही कभी लंबी किताबें या छोटी कहानियाँ पढ़ते हैं, वे भी सबसे छोटी साहित्यिक विधाओं के बेहतरीन उदाहरणों की सराहना करते हैं। मैं लंबे समय से इन छोटी विधाओं से आकर्षित रहा हूँ। ऐसा लगता है कि वे ठीक वहीं स्थित हैं जहाँ मेरा दिल है—साहित्य और दर्शन के बीच कहीं।

People who rarely read long books, or even short stories, still appreciate the greatest examples of the shortest literary genres. I have long been fascinated by these short genres. They seem to lie just where my heart is, somewhere between literature and philosophy.

People who rarely read long books, or even short stories, still appreciate the greatest examples of the shortest literary genres. I have long been fascinated by these short genres. They seem to lie just where my heart is, somewhere between literature and philosophy.

मैंने कई सालों तक संस्कृत की पढ़ाई की है, और अपनी पीएचडी का सारा कोर्सवर्क पूरा कर चुका हूँ। और आज अमेरिकी योग में जो कुछ भी चल रहा है, उसमें से ज़्यादातर बस मनगढ़ंत चीज़ें हैं। यहाँ तक कि समझदार और अच्छे लोग भी—जैसे पश्चिमी चिकित्सक, योग थेरेपिस्ट और अन्य स्वास्थ्यकर्मी—जिन्हें आसन पसंद हैं, वे बस यह कहते हैं, "चलो मिलकर योग थेरेपी जैसी कोई चीज़ बना लेते हैं।"

I studied Sanskrit for many years, and I've got all the coursework for my Ph.D. And a lot of what's going on in American Yoga is just made-up stuff. Smart people, even good people, Western therapists, Yoga therapists and other things, Western healthcare practitioners who love Asana and say, "Let's make up yoga therapy."

I studied Sanskrit for many years, and I've got all the coursework for my Ph.D. And a lot of what's going on in American Yoga is just made-up stuff. Smart people, even good people, Western therapists, Yoga therapists and other things, Western healthcare practitioners who love Asana and say, "Let's make up yoga therapy."

'द टेंपेस्ट' के सुखद अंत में, प्रोस्पेरो राजा को उसके बेटे से मिलाता है, मिरांडा का सच्चा प्यार ढूँढ़ता है, बुरे ड्यूक को सज़ा देता है, एरियल को आज़ाद करता है और खुद दोबारा ड्यूक बन जाता है। कैलिबन को छोड़कर—बाकी सब खुश हैं, सबको माफ कर दिया जाता है, सब ठीक हो जाता है, और वे सब शांत समुद्र में अपनी नावें लेकर निकल जाते हैं। सुखद अंत। शेक्सपियर की कहानियों में ऐसा ही होता है। लेकिन शेक्सपियर गलत थे। कभी-कभी चीज़ों को दोबारा ठीक करने के लिए कोई प्रोस्पेरो नहीं होता। और कभी-कभी दया की भावना भी कम पड़ जाती है।

At the happy ending of the Tempest, Prospero brings the kind back togeter with his son, and finds Miranda's true love and punishes the bad duke and frees Ariel and becomes a duke himself again. Everyone - except Caliban - is happy, and everyone is forgiven, and everyone is fine, and they all sail away on calm seas. Happy endings. That's how it is in Shakespeare. But Shakespeare was wrong. Sometimes there isn't a Prospero to make everything fine again. And sometimes the quality of mercy is strained.

At the happy ending of the Tempest, Prospero brings the kind back togeter with his son, and finds Miranda's true love and punishes the bad duke and frees Ariel and becomes a duke himself again. Everyone - except Caliban - is happy, and everyone is forgiven, and everyone is fine, and they all sail away on calm seas. Happy endings. That's how it is in Shakespeare. But Shakespeare was wrong. Sometimes there isn't a Prospero to make everything fine again. And sometimes the quality of mercy is strained.

आज के समय में शक ने आस्था पर पूरी तरह काबू पा लिया है और आस्था का शक से कोई नाता नहीं रहा।

In the present age doubt has become immune to faith and faith has dissociated itself from doubt.

In the present age doubt has become immune to faith and faith has dissociated itself from doubt.

शिलर एक महत्वपूर्ण दार्शनिक हैं क्योंकि वे दर्शाते हैं कि सामान्य जीवन में सुंदरता का विचार कितना अभिन्न रूप से जुड़ा हुआ है।

Schiller is an important philosopher because he shows just how integral the idea of beauty is in normal life.

Schiller is an important philosopher because he shows just how integral the idea of beauty is in normal life.

आत्मपरकता (सब्जेक्टिविज्म) के खिलाफ संघर्ष उस आरोप से बचने की कोशिश था जिसे तब 'आदर्शवाद' (आइडियलिज्म) या 'शून्यवाद' (निहिलिज्म) कहा जाता था—यानी यह आरोप कि हम अपनी मानसिक छवियों या विचारों के अलावा और कुछ नहीं जानते।

The struggle against subjectivism was the attempt to avoid the charge of what was then called "idealism" or "nihilism", i.e., that we know nothing more than our own representations.

The struggle against subjectivism was the attempt to avoid the charge of what was then called "idealism" or "nihilism", i.e., that we know nothing more than our own representations.