United States or Sint Maarten ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !


No writer has more directly identified himself with the fallacy now under consideration, or has embodied it in more distinct terms, than Leibnitz. In his view, unless a thing was not merely conceivable, but even explainable, it could not exist in nature. All natural phenomena, according to him, must be susceptible of being accounted for a priori. The only facts of which no explanation could be given but the will of God, were miracles properly so called. “Je reconnais,” says he, “qu’il n’est pas permis de nier ce qu’on n’entend pas; mais j’ajoute qu’on a droit de nier (au moins dans l’ordre naturel) ce que absolument n’est point intelligible ni explicable. Je soutiens aussi ... qu’enfin la conception des créatures n’est pas la mesure du pouvoir de Dieu, mais que leur conceptivité, ou force de concevoir, est la mesure du pouvoir de la nature, tout ce qui est conforme

But even if this had not been so, Marie’s work had served its purpose, and of necessity passed into the crucible of human thought and expression, to be resolved into matter suited to other needs and conditions. As has been well said, “les siècles se succèdent, et chacun porte son fruit, qui n’est pas celui du siècle précédent: les livres sont les fruits des mœurs.”

But the maid’s statement occupied all my mind. “Madame n’est pas heureuse.” It had a dreadful precision . . . “Not happy . . .” This unhappiness had almost a concrete formsomething resembling a horrid bat. I was tired, excited, and generally overwrought. My head felt empty. What were the appearances of unhappiness?

Tout ce qui n’est pas indispensable est nuisible,” a phrase which is often on Carolus-Duran’s lips, may be taken as the keynote of his work, where one finds a noble simplicity of line and color scheme, an elimination of useless detail, a contempt for tricks to enforce an effect, and above all a comprehension and mastery of light, vitality, and texturethose three unities of the painter’s artthat bring his canvases very near to those of his self-imposed Spanish master.

He writes: “Ce fut une déclaration de la Cause dans toute sa grandeur, et jamais l’Orient n’a vu retentir le nom de Bahá dans une pareille formule.... J’ai prefère laisser l’avocat qui n’est pas Behá’í en parler.