“If nature is never bound down, nor the voice of inspiration stifled, that is enough.”

Woman in the Nineteenth Century (1845)
Context: Harmony exists no less in difference than in likeness, if only the same key-note govern both parts. Woman the poem, man the poet; woman the heart, man the head; such divisions are only important when they are never to be transcended. If nature is never bound down, nor the voice of inspiration stifled, that is enough.

Adopted from Wikiquote. Last update June 3, 2021. History

Help us to complete the source, original and additional information

Do you have more details about the quote "If nature is never bound down, nor the voice of inspiration stifled, that is enough." by Margaret Fuller?
Margaret Fuller photo
Margaret Fuller 116
American feminist, poet, author, and activist 1810–1850

Related quotes

Anne Louise Germaine de Staël photo

“The voice of conscience is so delicate that it is easy to stifle it; but it is also so clear that it is impossible to mistake it.”

Anne Louise Germaine de Staël (1766–1817) Swiss author

Original: (fr) La voix de la conscience est si délicate, qu'il est facile d'étouffer; mais elle est si pure, qu'il est impossible de la méconnaître.
Source: De l’Allemagne [Germany] (1813), Pt. 3, ch. 13

Emma Goldman photo
Mary Elizabeth Coleridge photo

“Is this wide world not large enough to fill thee,
Nor Nature, nor that deep man's Nature, Art?
Are they too thin, too weak and poor to still thee,
Thou little heart?”

Mary Elizabeth Coleridge (1861–1907) British writer

Self-Question, reported in Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, 10th ed. (1919).

“Even if there had never been a Buddha nor a Christ
CHRIST NATURE IS!
BUDDHA NATURE IS!”

Frederick Franck (1909–2006) Dutch painter

Source: Echoes from the Bottomless Well (1985), p. 103

Robert Burns photo

“The voice of Nature loudly cries,
And many a message from the skies,
That something in us never dies.”

Robert Burns (1759–1796) Scottish poet and lyricist

New Year's Day, st. 3 (1790)

F. Scott Fitzgerald photo
Roger A. Pielke photo

“Whether one agrees or not with Mr. Taylor (or the other climatologists whose voices are being stifled), this is an inappropriate politicalization of climate science to promote a particular view.”

Roger A. Pielke (1946) American meteorologist

"More on the Suppression of Climate Change Views," Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group Weblog (2007-06-23) http://climatesci.org/2007/06/23/more-on-the-suppresion-of-climate-change-views/

Daniel Dennett photo

“Good intentions and inspiration are simply not enough.”

Daniel Dennett (1942) American philosopher

Thank Goodness! (2006)
Context: One thing in particular struck me when I compared the medical world on which my life now depended with the religious institutions I have been studying so intensively in recent years. One of the gentler, more supportive themes to be found in every religion (so far as I know) is the idea that what really matters is what is in your heart: if you have good intentions, and are trying to do what (God says) is right, that is all anyone can ask. Not so in medicine! If you are wrong —especially if you should have known better — your good intentions count for almost nothing. And whereas taking a leap of faith and acting without further scrutiny of one's options is often celebrated by religions, it is considered a grave sin in medicine. A doctor whose devout faith in his personal revelations about how to treat aortic aneurysm led him to engage in untested trials with human patients would be severely reprimanded if not driven out of medicine altogether. There are exceptions, of course. A few swashbuckling, risk-taking pioneers are tolerated and (if they prove to be right) eventually honored, but they can exist only as rare exceptions to the ideal of the methodical investigator who scrupulously rules out alternative theories before putting his own into practice. Good intentions and inspiration are simply not enough.In other words, whereas religions may serve a benign purpose by letting many people feel comfortable with the level of morality they themselves can attain, no religion holds its members to the high standards of moral responsibility that the secular world of science and medicine does! And I'm not just talking about the standards 'at the top' — among the surgeons and doctors who make life or death decisions every day. I'm talking about the standards of conscientiousness endorsed by the lab technicians and meal preparers, too. This tradition puts its faith in the unlimited application of reason and empirical inquiry, checking and re-checking, and getting in the habit of asking "What if I'm wrong?" Appeals to faith or membership are never tolerated. Imagine the reception a scientist would get if he tried to suggest that others couldn't replicate his results because they just didn't share the faith of the people in his lab! And, to return to my main point, it is the goodness of this tradition of reason and open inquiry that I thank for my being alive today.

Related topics