
Source: 1980s and later, Models of my life, 1991, p. 302.
Source: Existence (1958), p. 13; also published in The Discovery of Being : Writings in Existential Psychology (1983), Part II : The Cultural Background, Ch. 5 : Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Freud, p. 52
Source: 1980s and later, Models of my life, 1991, p. 302.
“Art is naturally concerned with man in his existential aspect, not in his scientific aspect.”
Source: The Strength To Dream (1961), p. 214
Context: Art is naturally concerned with man in his existential aspect, not in his scientific aspect. For the scientist, questions about man's stature and significance, suffering and power, are not really scientific questions; consequently he is inclined to regard art as an inferior recreation. Unfortunately, the artist has come to accept the scientist's view of himself. The result, I contend, is that art in the twentieth century — literary art in particular — has ceased to take itself seriously as the primary instrument of existential philosophy. It has ceased to regard itself as an instrument for probing questions of human significance. Art is the science of human destiny. Science is the attempt to discern the order that underlies the chaos of nature; art is the attempt to discern the order that underlies the chaos of man. At its best, it evokes unifying emotions; it makes the reader see the world momentarily as a unity.
Source: The Interpretation of Cultures (1973), p. 30
Source: The Four Pillars of Investing (2002), Chapter 2, Measuring The Beast, p. 71.
“[ Personality is]… that which tells what a man will do when placed in a given situation.”
Source: The Scientific Analysis of Personality, 1965, p. 25
"Introduction to 'Plague of Conscience'", The Collected Stories of Greg Bear (2002)