A Quote by Eckhart Tolle

You can not have an argument with a fully conscious person. — © Eckhart Tolle
You can not have an argument with a fully conscious person.
Every person in a well-ordered state is fully conscious of both his responsibilities and his rights.
When law and duty are one, united by religion, you never become fully conscious, fully aware of yourself. You are always a little less than an individual.
Any work of science, no matter what its point of departure, cannot become fully convincing until it crosses the boundary between the theoretical and the experimental: Experimentation must give way to argument, and argument must have recourse to experimentation.
I am all for a good drag out argument every now and then, but the person that talks the loudest and uses the most curse words is not necessarily the winner of the argument.
As a spirit having a human experience, you can choose to not merely exist but to be fully conscious and aware of living in a limited world. When you take a conscious part in life and its multitudes of choices, you won't let life happen to you - you will make life happen for you.
Focus your mind on 'I Am', which is pure and simple being. You are Here and Now only. Contemplate what it is to be fully 'Here' and fully 'Now'. For this you must leave all else. Stay only as here-now Conscious presence. This is Heart. This is Self.
If I'm in a political argument, I think I can, with reasonable accuracy and without boasting, put the other person's side of the case at least as well as they could. One has to be able to say that in any well-conducted argument.
It's when I am fully conscious that I ask questions.
The only driver stronger than an economic argument to do something is the war argument, the I-don't-want-to-die argument.
The thing I always say to any writer that I'm working with is: Just make sure that in any argument, EVERYONE is right. I want every single person arguing a righteous side of the argument. That makes interesting drama.
The Consequentialist trinity is typically regarded in this way: Bentham is crude, Mill's writings are full of howlers and inconsistencies, and Sidgwick was too smart to fully embrace Consequentialism. All of these great traditions in moral philosophy express strands of our moral consciousness and they should all be treated as research programs rather than as fully determinate views that can be leveled by a counterexample or by a clever argument.
The argument for collectivism is simple if false; it is an immediate emotional argument. The argument for individualism is subtle and sophisticated; it is an indirect rational argument. And the emotional faculties are more highly developed in most men than the rational, paradoxically or especially even in those who regard themselves as intellectuals.
If you go to the right conservative places you'll find there's a huge argument about this among conservatives, particularly the conservative elites and the conservative intellectuals. There's always an argument among our people over who's the smartest person in the room and they're always trying to outsmart each other with the fanciest smartest most obscure argument. The fact is these arguments are taking place within the conservative movement I think quite a lot.
We are born helpless. As soon as we are fully conscious we discover loneliness.
Once scouting fully opens its doors to all who desire the same experience that so fully enriched me as a young person, I will be happy to reconsider a role on the advisory board.
When you are fully conscious, drama does not come into your life anymore.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!