Quiero viajar por Europa. Sé que sólo encontraré un cementerio, pero qué cementerio tan sugeridor. En él reposan ilustres muertos; cada una de sus losas nos habla de una vida llena de noble ardor, de una fe ciega en el propio ideal, de una lucha por la verdad y la ciencia. Caeré de rodillas ante esas piedras y las besaré llorando, íntimamente convencido de hallarme en un cementerio y nada más que en un cementerio. Mis lágrimas no serán de desesperación, sino de felicidad. Mi propia ternura me embriaga. Adoro los tiernos brotes primaverales y el cielo azul. La inteligencia y la lógica no desempeñan en esto ningún papel. Es el corazón el que ama... es el vientre... Amamos las primeras fuerzas de nuestra juventud...
I maintain that if the discoveries of Kepler and Newton could not have been made known except by sacrificing the lives of one, a dozen, a hundred, or more men, Newton would have had the right, would indeed have been in duty bound … to eliminate the dozen or the hundred men for the sake of making his discoveries known to the whole of humanity. But it does not follow from that that Newton had a right to murder people right and left and to steal every day in the market. Then, I remember, I maintain in my article that all … well, legislators and leaders of men, such as Lycurgus, Solon, Mahomet, Napoleon, and so on, were all without exception criminals, from the very fact that, making a new law, they transgressed the ancient one, handed down from their ancestors and held sacred by the people, and they did not stop short at bloodshed either, if that bloodshed – often of innocent persons fighting bravely in defence of ancient law – were of use to their cause. It’s remarkable, in fact, that the majority, indeed, of these benefactors and leaders of humanity were guilty of terrible carnage. In short, I maintain that all great men or even men a little out of the common, that is to say capable of giving some new word, must from their very nature be criminals – more or less, of course. Otherwise it’s hard for them to get out of the common rut; and to remain in the common rut is what they can’t submit to, from their very nature again, and to my mind they ought not, indeed, to submit to it. You see that there is nothing particularly new in all that. The same thing has been printed and read a thousand times before. As
There are, of course, innumerable subdivisions, but the distinguishing features of both categories are fairly well marked. The first category, generally speaking, are men conservative in temperament and law-abiding; they live under control and love to be controlled. To my thinking it is their duty to be controlled, because that’s their vocation, and there is nothing humiliating in it for them. The second category all transgress the law; they are destroyers or disposed to destruction according to their capacities. The crimes of these men are of course relative and varied; for the most part they seek in very varied ways the destruction of the present for the sake of the better. But if such a one is forced for the sake of his idea to step over a corpse or wade through blood, he can, I maintain, find himself, in his conscience, a sanction for wading through blood – that depends on the idea and its dimensions, note that. It’s only in that sense I speak of their right to crime in my article (you remember it began with the legal question). There’s no need for much anxiety, however; the masses will scarcely ever admit this right; they punish them or hang them (more or less), and in doing so fulfil quite justly their conservative vocation. But the same masses set these criminals on a pedestal in the next generation and worship them (more or less). The first category is always the man of the present, the second the man of the future. The first preserve the world and people it, the second move the world and lead it to its goal. Each class has an equal right to exist. In
ახლა კი ვიცი, რომ ის არის ხალხის მბრძანებელი და ბატონი, ვინც სულითა და ჭკუით ძლიერია! ვინც მეტს გაბედავს, სიმართლეც იმისკენ არის. ვინც მეტად აიგდებს ყველაფერს აბუჩად, კანონმდებელიც ის არის; ვისაც მეტის გაბედვა შეუძლია, ყველაზე მართალიც ის არის! ასე ყოფილა აქამდის, ასე იქნება ამას იქითაც! მარტო უსინათლო თუ ვერ გაარჩევს და დაინახავს ამას!
Ne reprezentăm întotdeauna veşnicia drept ceva ce nu poate fi înţeles, ceva uriaş, imens! Dar de ce trebuie să fie neapărat imensă? Şi dacă veşnicia nu este decât o magherniţă oarecare, închipuieşte-ţi, o singură odaie, un fel de baie ţărănească, afumată, cu pînze de păianjen prin colţuri? Eu, uneori, aşa îmi închipui că este.
¿Por qué no he de mirar a mi servidor como a un pariente que se admite con alegría en el seno de la familia? Esto es ya realizable y servirá de base para la magnífica unión que se cumplirá en el porvenir, cuando el hombre no pretenda convertir en servidores a sus semejantes, como ocurre ahora, sino que desee ardientemente ser el servidor de todos los demás, como nos enseñan los Evangelios.
the whole idea wasn't nearly as stupid as it appears now, in the light of failure… (In the light of failure everything appears stupid!) By means of that stupid action I hoped to put myself in a position of independence, to take the first step, to obtain funds, and then the whole thing would have been wiped out by the measureless benefits (relatively speaking) that would have been achieved
Procure amar al prójimo con un ardor inextinguible. A medida que vaya usted progresando en el amor al prójimo, se irá convenciendo de la existencia de Dios y de la inmortalidad del alma. Si alcanza la abnégación completa en su amor al prójimo, creerá ciegamente y la duda no podrá siquiera rozar su alma.