If man made himself the first object of study, he would see how incapable he is of going further. How can a part know the whole?
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Perhaps, to the uninformed, it may appear unaccountable that a man should be able to retain in his memory such a variety of learning; but the close alliance with each other, of the different branches of science, will explain the difficulty.
It's the way I study - to understand something by trying to work it out or, in other words, to understand something by creating it. Not creating it one hundred percent, of course; but taking a hint as to which direction to go but not remembering the details. These you work out for yourself.
We cannot understand our humanity just by studying individuals.
Learning is acquired by reading books, but the much more necessary learning, the knowledge of the world, is only to be acquired by reading men, and studying all the various facets of them.
As the true object of education is not to render the pupil the mere copy of his preceptor, it is rather to be rejoiced in, than lamented, that various reading should lead him into new trains of thinking.
The paradox of education is precisely this; that as one begins to become conscious one begins to examine the society in which he is being educated.
He who studies books alone will know how things ought to be, and he who studies men will know how they are.
The paradox of education is precisely this - that as one begins to become conscious one begins to examine the society in which he is being educated.
It seems to me that man is made to act rather than to know: the principles of things escape our most persevering researches.
No man understands a deep book until he has seen and lived at least part of its contents.
No opposing quotes found.