“Samuelson clearly defined himself as a centrist, rather than an advocate of a right- or leftwing philosophy.”
7.Paul Samuelson is Politically Savvy.
Ten Ways to Know Paul A. Samuelson (2006)
Help us to complete the source, original and additional information
Michael Szenberg 10
American economist 1934Related quotes
“Educational technique needs a philosophy, which is a matter of faith rather than of science.”
Hans Freudenthal (1977) Weeding and Sowing: Preface to a Science of Mathematical Education. p. 33
“Philosophy is "an unusually stubborn attempt to think clearly.”
Source: 1940s, Male and Female (1949), p. 286, with bracket text from: Mary Ann Lamanna, Agnes Czerwinski Riedmann, Agnes Riedmann [2006] Marriages & Families: Making Choices and Facing Change. p. 191
On Benjamin N. Cardozo in "Mr. Justice Cardozo" (1939); also in The Spirit of Liberty: Papers and Addresses (1952), p. 131.
Extra-judicial writings
“The most intolerant advocate is he who is trying to convince himself.”
Source: Epigrams, p. 367
Source: Labyrinths of Reason (1988), Chapter 1: "Paradox", p. 23
“I would rather be right than be President.”
Speech, Senate (1850), referring to the Compromise Measures.
“From the very beginning, existentialism defined itself as a philosophy of ambiguity.”
Part I : Ambiguity and Freedom
The Ethics of Ambiguity (1947)
Context: From the very beginning, existentialism defined itself as a philosophy of ambiguity. It was by affirming the irreducible character of ambiguity that Kierkegaard opposed himself to Hegel, and it is by ambiguity that, in our own generation, Sartre, in Being and Nothingness, fundamentally defined man, that being whose being is not to be, that subjectivity which realizes itself only as a presence in the world, that engaged freedom, that surging of the for-oneself which is immediately given for others. But it is also claimed that existentialism is a philosophy of the absurd and of despair. It encloses man in a sterile anguish, in an empty subjectivity. It is incapable of furnishing him with any principle for making choices. Let him do as he pleases. In any case, the game is lost. Does not Sartre declare, in effect, that man is a “useless passion,” that he tries in vain to realize the synthesis of the for-oneself and the in-oneself, to make himself God? It is true. But it is also true that the most optimistic ethics have all begun by emphasizing the element of failure involved in the condition of man; without failure, no ethics; for a being who, from the very start, would be an exact co-incidence with himself, in a perfect plenitude, the notion of having-to-be would have no meaning. One does not offer an ethics to a God. It is impossible to propose any to man if one defines him as nature, as something given. The so-called psychological or empirical ethics manage to establish themselves only by introducing surreptitiously some flaw within the manthing which they have first defined.