February 9

February 9 Quotes of the day from previous years:


 * 2004
 * Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength. ~ Eric Hoffer
 * selected by Moby


 * 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)
 * selected by Kalki


 * 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)
 * selected by Kalki


 * 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
 * proposed by Kalki


 * 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 ~
 * proposed by Kalki


 * 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
 * proposed by Kalki <!-- * 4 Kalki 19:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 3 InvisibleSun 23:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 It would have been nice if the "truth" was further clarified here. It sounds nice, but there's no real hidden message or thought provocation here at all. Zarbon 01:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is very clearly indicated that the truth he speaks of is such a truth as you seem willing and eager to remain oblivious to, as a means of justifying or excusing your own brutal impulses and tarades, ie: "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." I agree with such a vision of the truth of matters, even though there are many fools who are stupidly willing to do all they can to try to prove it false. To say that "there's no real hidden message or thought provocation here at all" is to merely demonstrate the vacuity of your own comprehensions. ~ Kalki 03:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is simply not powerful enough. You need to understand what I mean by powerful. I don't believe "evil" to be a human condition. The very problem I have is that you even consider it a condition when it is truly nonexistent. My belief is as follows: "The strong survive and the weak perish". And any message that can be attributed to this moral dynamic is what I love. For you to even begin to comprehend what I'm saying, I think what you need to do is understand the message behind this quotation first. Any message has to be extremely moral in order for me to love it. By morality, I am not referring to blindly loving something just for the sake of it standing for love and/or against "evil". For me, there's no such thing as "good" and "evil". Those are dynamic imageries, yes, and mankind has grown accustomed to them and uses them frequently to summarize specific peoples. But I do believe that there is no ultimate evil and ultimate good...in explanation...something that is good for you may be evil for me and vice versa. I don't judge anything as good or evil and I don't label anything. Well, for example, as reference, back in 1950...people were not only being accused of Communism in America (as if it were a bad thing), they were being forced to decline their belief based on the system being "corrupt". The technicality here is that this creates a dogma, which is in itself an "evil" if you believe in that word so strongly. Is it right to say that every regime is wrong and all history is wrong because of its "evil" and all you can learn is that history has failed and only now has history begun to be made by America? Absolutely not. I think what you characterize as "evil", I characterize as beauty, ay comrade? - Zarbon 05:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, cut it with the "comrade" nonsense. I do not consider you much of a "comrade" at all, and I am not entirely sure of exactly why you keep using the term.

You state, in a rather succinct nihilistic expression, a bit more coherently than some of your statements, but just as absurdly: "I don't believe "evil" to be a human condition. The very problem I have is that you even consider it a condition when it is truly nonexistent."

I personally don't believe in any totally "evil being" — nor even a totally evil state — but many forms of evil will and inclinations certainly exist within people's minds — along with many other forms of profound confusion and stupidity.

Evil is something I am often inclined to define as the deliberate will, born of various levels of ignorance and confusion, to needlessly harm, destroy, diminish or mar the existence or beauty of things.

There are other less constrained and other more constrained definitions I can accept, based on particular perspectives on Reality, and various levels of evil will and actions, ranging from mild to extreme, but the idea that something definable as evil will simply does not exist, and is not actually an all too common phenomena among many people is something I will make no pretense of believing or accepting. Many can debate as to what necessary or unnecessary levels of harm or destruction might be, according to their perspectives and circumstances — but to find ways of diminishing the levels of such destruction and increasing the levels of progress and growth based on what has come before, is usually an aim of the wise. To deny that either such progress or diminishment exists or can exist is usually a contention of the most profoundly foolish of idiots.

I am not usually inclined to be harsh toward people, but there are times I must sometimes harshly reject and denounce certain ideas and many forms of persistent foolishness, when I encounter them.

Evil will is not something I presume to be entirely innate, nor something entirely alien to human inclinations, and I am not someone who believes that the ignorance and confusion which produce evil will is something that can be entirely be eliminated from humanity, but I can agree with Dostoevsky's "ridiculous man" that to be immersed in it is not the normal — or at least ultimately not the permanent or primary condition of humankind. Neither is stupidity — though one can find abundant evidence of people's ability to immerse themselves in that nearly every day. ~ Kalki 08:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC) -->


 * 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
 * proposed by Kalki


 * 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
 * proposed by Tab1of2


 * 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 ~
 * proposed by Kalki


 * 2013


 * proposed by Fys
 * 2014


 * proposed by Kalki


 * 2015


 * proposed by bystander


 * 2016


 * proposed by Kalki


 * 2017


 * proposed by Kalki


 * 2018


 * proposed by Kalki


 * 2019


 * proposed by Kalki


 * 2020


 * proposed by Kalki


 * 2021


 * proposed by Kalki


 * 2022


 * proposed by Kalki


 * 2023


 * proposed by Kalki


 * 2024


 * proposed by Kalki


 * 2025 : Rank or add further suggestions…

Suggestions
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. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 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 possess (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 &middot; 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)

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
 * 3 N6n 03:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2 Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 05:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 1 ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 02:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 3 ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 02:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC) with a lean toward 4.


 * 3 ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 02:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC) with a lean toward 4.


 * 3 ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 02:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 3 ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 02:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * This suggestion originally proposed for 7 April as quote of William Ellery Channing, but that was subsequently revealed as a misattribution, and the suggestion moved here.

We smile at the ignorance of the savage who cuts down the tree in order to reach its fruit; but the same blunder is made by every person who is overeager and impatient in the pursuit of pleasure. ~ William Ellery Channing Philip Shuttleworth
 * 3 Zarbon 01:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 17:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC) 3 Kalki 02:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC) with a lean toward 4. 3 — but only after being transferred to 9 February page, for the birthdate of the correct author Philip Shuttleworth.
 * 3.5 Ningauble 16:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)