Quotessence
Home / Quotes / Quote by Виктор Франкъл

Quote by Виктор Франкъл

“Свободата е само част от историята и половината от истината. Свободата не е нищо друго освен отрицателния аспектна целия феномен, чийто положителен аспект е отговорността. Всъщност свободата е застрашена от израждане в прост произвол, ако тя не се живее от позицията на отговорността. Ето защо аз препоръчвам Статутята на свободата от Източното крайбрежие да бъде допълнена със Статуя на отговорността на западното крайбрежие.”

Quote by Виктор Франкъл

Work

За смисъла на живота

Browse quotes and source details for this work. more

Author

Виктор Франкъл

Browse famous quotes and profile details for Виктор Франкъл. more

You May Also Like

“Свободата не е нищо друго освен отрицателния аспект на целия феномен, чийто положителен аспект е отговорността. Всъщност свободата е застрашена от израждане в произвол, ако тя не се живее от позицията на отговорността. Ето защо аз препоръчвам Статуята на свободата от Източното крайбрежие да бъде допълнена със Статуя на отговорността на Западното крайбрежие.”

“So on summer evenings, when summer finally came, and the full moon lit the fields so silver, you could squint and it would still look just like it did after snowfall. On those nights, Noah and I would run together through the tobacco, like this. And there was this mighty clear sky full of stars that made you stop and look up, you head empty as a ladle as you tried to locate yourself inside an immeasurable universe. And no one knows where you are and you feel, for a tiny second, that you have no parents, that they never existed at all, which is impossible and shameful to love, but I did. I loved that feeling.”

“THE COURT: Mr. Mangione, will you please stand. Sir, have you seen a copy of the federal indictment against you? THE DEFENDANT: I have. THE COURT: And have you had enough time to discuss it with your lawyers? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Would you like me to read the indictment out loud, or do you waive its public reading? THE DEFENDANT: I wave. THE COURT: And how do you wish to plead today? THE DEFENDANT: Not guilty. THE COURT: All right. Thank you, sir. You can be seated.”

“When I began my job, my genitor behaved like a true liberal: on the one hand, he was embarrassed by my working as a waiter; on the other hand, he felt politically strengthened in his security. For Cadmo – that is my brother’s name – I am simply the ruler's menial. The old man is a speechifier, the boy a permanent anarchist, albeit only so long as things do not get hot. Degrees of freedom in which one can commit or omit everything are alien to both men.”

“मुझे शुरू से कार ड्राइव करने वाली और गाली देने वाली लड़कियाँ बहुत पसंद थीं। ऐसा लगता था कि कम-से-कम ये तो कुछ भी सहती नहीं होंगी सब अपनी मर्जी से करती होंगी”

“A mine is anonymous, a crude weapon. Partisans like using mines because of the peculiar nature of their struggle, which makes the landscape uncertain. The anarch is not tempted by them, if only because he is oriented to facts, not ideas. He fights alone, as a free man, and would never dream of sacrificing himself to having one inadequacy supplant another and a new regime triumph over the old one. In this sense, he is closer to the philistine; the baker whose chief concern is to bake good bread; the peasant, who works his plough while armies march across his fields. The anarch is a forest rebel, the partisans are a collective. I have observed their quarrels as both a historian and a contemporary. Stuffy air, unclear ideas, lethal energy, which ultimately puts abdicated monarchs and retired generals back in the saddle – and they then show their gratitude by liquidating those selfsame partisans. I had to love certain ones, because they loved freedom, even though the cause did not deserve their sacrifice; this made me sad. If I love freedom above all else, then any commitment becomes a metaphor, a symbol. This touches on the difference between the forest rebel and the partisan: this distinction is not qualitative but essential in nature. The anarch is closer to Being. The partisan moves within the social or national party structure, the anarch is outside of it. Of course, the anarch cannot elude the party structure, since he lives in society. The difference will be obvious when I go to my forest shack while my Lebanese joins the partisans. I will then not only hold on to my essential freedom, but also gain its full and visible enjoyment. The Lebanese, by contrast, will shift only within society; he will become dependent on a different group, which will get an even tighter hold on him. Naturally, I could just as well or just as badly serve the partisans rather than the Condor – a notion I have toyed with. Either way, I remain the same, inwardly untouched. It makes no difference that it is more dangerous siding with the partisans than with the tyrant; I love danger. But as a historian, I want danger to stand out sharply. Murder and treason, pillage and fire, and vendetta are of scant interest for the historian; they render long stretches of history – say, Corsican – unfruitful. Tribal history becomes significant only when, as in the Teutoburger Wald, it manifests itself as world history. Then names and dates shine. The partisan operates on the margins; he serves the great powers, which arm him with weapons and slogans. Soon after the victory, he becomes a nuisance. Should he decide to maintain the role of idealist, he is made to see reason. In Eumeswil, where ideas vegetate, the process is even more wretched. As soon as a group has coalesced, ‘one of Twelve’ is bound to consider betrayal. He is then killed, often merely on suspicion. At the night bar, I heard the Domo mention such a case to the Condor. ‘He could have gotten off more cheaply with us,’ he commented. ‘Muddle heads – I’ll take the gangsters anytime: they know their business.’ I entered this in my notebook. In conclusion, I would like to repeat that I do not fancy myself as anything special for being an anarch. My emotions are no different from those of the average man. Perhaps I have pondered this relationship a bit more carefully and am conscious of a freedom to which ‘basically’ everybody is entitled – a freedom that more or less dictates his actions.”

“Freedom of the press’ and ‘capital punishment' – I usually give these phrases a wide berth at the family table, for were I to voice even the slightest criticism, the game could be up for me altogether. He would never get it into his head that freedom begins where freedom of the press ends. ‘Freedom of thought’ – this means he would never test his ideas in a state of primeval freedom. I am willing to grant that he is rooted in liberal traditions, although they are more diluted and mitigated than in my genitor. Even good ideas have their time. Liberalism is to freedom as anarchism is to anarchy.”