In days gone by, we were afraid of dying in dishonor or a state of sin. Nowadays, we are afraid of dying fools. Now the fact is th...at there is no Extreme Unction to absolve us of foolishness. We endure it here on earth as subjective eternity.LESSATTRIBUTION DETAIL »
I have not much faith in women in fiction.... Women are so horribly subjective and they have such scorn for the healthy commonplac...e. When a woman writes a story of adventure, a stout sea tale, a manly battle yarn, anything without wine, women, and love, then I will begin to hope for something great from them, not before.LESSATTRIBUTION DETAIL »
The old, subjective, stagnant, indolent and wretched life for woman has gone. She has as many resources as men, as many activities... beckon her on. As large possibilities swell and inspire her heart.LESSATTRIBUTION DETAIL »
Sin seen from the thought, is a diminution or less: seen from the conscience or will, it is pravity or bad. The intellect names it... shade, absence of light, and no essence. The conscience must feel it as essence, essential evil. This it is not: it has an objective existence, but no subjective.LESSATTRIBUTION DETAIL »
Keats is minute in observation, with an eye to every particular of every object; Shelley, usually working on a panoramic scale, ge...neralizes and reduces, in order that the details of his scenes may fit within a unity of the whole. Keats is naturalistic and representative, whereas Shelley more noticeably imposes his subjective conceptions upon what he sees. Shelley's vision is usually directed either up or down, while Keats looks out before him, horizontally; he glances at the sky casually, albeit observantly, while Shelley's gaze is earnest and painful, as if he strove to pierce the atmosphere and arrive at some ultimate vision above the air itself.LESSATTRIBUTION DETAIL »
Temperament refers to the mode of reaction and is constitutional and not changeable; character is essentially formed by a person's... experiences, especially of those in early life, and changeable, to some extent, by insights and new kinds of experiences. If a person has a choleric temperament, for instance, his mode of reaction is "quick and strong." But what he is quick or strong about depends on his kind of relatedness, his character. If he is a productive, just, loving person he will react quickly and strongly when he loves, when he is enraged by injustice, and when he is impressed by a new idea. If he is a destructive or sadistic character, he will be quick and strong in his destructiveness or in his cruelty. The confusion between temperament and character has had serious consequences for ethical theory. Preferences with regard to differences in temperament are mere matters of subjective taste. But differences in character are ethically of the most fundamental importance.LESSATTRIBUTION DETAIL »
The essential difference between novel and romance lies in the conception of characterization. The romancer does not attempt to cr...eate "real people" so much as stylized figures which expand into psychological archetypes. It is in the romance that we find Jung's libido, anima, and shadow reflected in the hero, heroine, and villain respectively. That is why the romance so often radiates a glow of subjective intensity that the novel lacks, and why a suggestion of allegory is constantly creeping in around the fringes. Certain elements of character are released in the romance which make it naturally a more revolutionary form than the novel. The novelist deals with personality, with characters wearing their personae or social masks. He needs the framework of a stable society, and many of our best novelists have been conventional to the verge of fussiness. The romancer deals with individuality, with characters in vacuo idealized by revery, and, however conservative he may be, something nihilistic and untamable is likely to keep breaking out of his pages.LESSATTRIBUTION DETAIL »
There are no better terms available to describe [the] difference between the approach of the natural and the social sciences than ...to call the former "objective" and the latter "subjective."... While for the natural scientist the contrast between objective facts and subjective opinions is a simple one, the distinction cannot as readily be applied to the object of the social sciences. The reason for this is that the object, the "facts" of the social sciences are also opinions--not opinions of the student of the social phenomena, of course, but opinions of those whose actions produce the object of the social scientist.LESSATTRIBUTION DETAIL »
It follows that man has his actual substantive life in the state, in learning, and so forth, as well as in labor and struggle with... the external world and with himself so that it is only out of his diremption that he fights his way to self-subsistent unity with himself. In the family he has a tranquil intuition of this unity, and there he lives a subjective ethical life on the plane of feeling. Woman, on the other hand, has her substantive destiny in the family, and to be imbued with family piety is her ethical frame of mind.LESSATTRIBUTION DETAIL »