“Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance.”

—  G. K. Chesterton

The Speaker (15 December 1900)

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 "Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance." by G. K. Chesterton?
G. K. Chesterton photo
G. K. Chesterton 229
English mystery novelist and Christian apologist 1874–1936

Related quotes

Prevale photo

“Elegance is woman: it bears your name.”

Prevale (1983) Italian DJ and producer

Original: (it) L'eleganza è donna: porta il tuo nome.
Source: prevale.net

Woodrow Wilson photo

“The United States must be neutral in fact as well as in name…We must be impartial in thought as well as in action.”

Woodrow Wilson (1856–1924) American politician, 28th president of the United States (in office from 1913 to 1921)

Message to the Senate (19 August 1914)
1910s

Diogenes Laërtius photo

“He said that there was one only good, namely, knowledge; and one only evil, namely, ignorance.”

Diogenes Laërtius (180–240) biographer of ancient Greek philosophers

Socrates, 14.
The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers (c. 200 A.D.), Book 2: Socrates, his predecessors and followers

Arnold Bennett photo

“A prig is a pompous fool who has gone out for a ceremonial walk, and without knowing it has lost an important part of his attire, namely, his sense of humour.”

Arnold Bennett (1867–1931) English novelist

Source: How to Live on Twenty-Four Hours a Day (1910), Chapter 12.

Leslie Stephen photo

“Philistine – a word which I understand properly to denote indifference to the higher intellectual interests. The word may also be defined, however, as the name applied by prigs to the rest of their species.”

Leslie Stephen (1832–1904) British author, literary critic, and first editor of the Dictionary of National Biography

The Cornhill Magazine, vol. 33 (1876) p. 574

Chuck Dixon photo

“The name “Bane” popped out at me while looking through a thesaurus to compile a list of possible names. That’s the name I kept coming back to when I thought of him and I eventually brought everyone else around to calling him that. The worry was that the name was too simple. I think that’s its charm; snappy and elegant and on-message. This guy is the bane of everyone he touches.”

Chuck Dixon (1954) American comic book writer

Interview: Chuck Dixon http://www.gothamwdeszczu.com.pl/en/2013/07/04/interview-chuck-dixon/ (July 4, 2013)

Keiji Nishitani photo

“People give names to persons and things, and then suppose that if they know the names, they know that which the names refer to.”

Keiji Nishitani book Religion and Nothingness

Source: Religion and Nothingness (1983), p. 101

Bertrand Russell photo

“To understand a name you must be acquainted with the particular of which it is a name.”

Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) logician, one of the first analytic philosophers and political activist

1910s, The Philosophy of Logical Atomism (1918)

William Brett, 1st Viscount Esher photo

“Where a man calls himself by a name which is not his name, he is telling a falsehood.”

William Brett, 1st Viscount Esher (1815–1899) British lawyer, judge and politician

Reddaway v. Banham (1895), L. R. 2 Q. B. D. [1895], p. 293.

Baruch Spinoza photo

“Perfection and imperfection are names which do not differ much from the names beauty and ugliness.”

Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677) Dutch philosopher

Letter to Hugo Boxel (Oct. 1674) The Chief Works of Benedict de Spinoza (1891) Tr. R. H. M. Elwes, Vol. 2, Letter 58 (54).
Context: Beauty, my dear Sir, is not so much a quality of the object beheld, as an effect in him who beholds it. If our sight were longer or shorter, or if our constitution were different, what now appears beautiful to us would seem misshapen, and what we now think misshapen we should regard as beautiful. The most beautiful hand seen through the microscope will appear horrible. Some things are beautiful at a distance, but ugly near; thus things regarded in themselves, and in relation to God, are neither ugly nor beautiful. Therefore, he who says that God has created the world, so that it might be beautiful, is bound to adopt one of the two alternatives, either that God created the world for the sake of men's pleasure and eyesight, or else that He created men's pleasure and eyesight for the sake of the world. Now, whether we adopt the former or the latter of these views, how God could have furthered His object by the creation of ghosts, I cannot see. Perfection and imperfection are names which do not differ much from the names beauty and ugliness.<!--p. 382

Related topics