A Quote by Heinrich Heine

Talking and eloquence are not the same: to speak and to speak well are two things. A fool may talk, but a wise man speaks. — © Heinrich Heine
Talking and eloquence are not the same: to speak and to speak well are two things. A fool may talk, but a wise man speaks.
To speak and to speak well are two things. A fool may talk, but a wise man speaks.
To speak and to speak well, are two things. A fool may talk, but a wise man speaks.
Talking and eloquence are not the same: to speak, and to speak well, are two things.
A fool may talk, but a wise man speaks.
Women speak because they wish to speak, whereas a man speaks only when driven to speak by something outside himself like, for instance, he can't find any clean socks.
When men talk about war, the stories and terminology vary - it's this battle, these weapons, this terrain. But no matter where you go in the world, women use the same language to speak of war. They speak of fire, they speak of death, and they speak of starvation.
There are topics which are common to men and women. I think that if a woman speaks of oppression, of misery, she will speak of it in exactly the same way as a man. But if she speaks of her own personal problems as a woman, she will obviously speak in another way.
Does a man speak foolishly?--suffer him gladly, for you are wise. Does he speak erroneously?--stop such a man's mouth with sound words that cannot be gainsaid. Does he speak truly?--rejoice in the truth.
A wise man may be duped as well as a fool; but the fool publishes the triumph of his deceiver; the wise man is silent, and denies that triumph to an enemy which he would hardly concede to a friend; a triumph that proclaims his own defeat.
It may, indeed, be assumed that a man who loses his temper while he is speaking is endeavouring to speak the truth such as he believes it to be, and again it may be assumed that a man who speaks constantly without losing his temper is not always entitled to the same implicit faith.
How any human being ever has had the impudence to speak against the right to speak, is beyond the power of my imagination. Here is a man who speaks-who exercises a right that he, by his speech, denies. Can liberty go further than that? Is there any toleration possible beyond the liberty to speak against liberty-the real believer in free speech allowing others to speak against the right to speak?
A politician must often talk and act before he has thought and read. He may be very ill informed respecting a question: all his notions about it may be vague and inaccurate; but speak he must. And if he is a man of ability, of tact, and of intrepidity, he soon finds that, even under such circumstances, it is possible to speak successfully.
We may define "faith" as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence. The substitution of emotion for evidence is apt to lead to strife, since different groups, substitute different emotions.
The fact would seem to be, if in my situation one may speak of facts, not only that I shall have to speak of things of which I cannot speak, but also, which is even more interesting, but also that I, which is if possible even more interesting, that I shall have to, I forget, no matter. And at the same time I am obliged to speak. I shall never be silent. Never.
A vain man finds it wise to speak good or ill of himself; a modest man does not talk of himself.
The fool who recognizes his foolishness, is a wise man. But the fool who believes himself a wise man, he really is a fool.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!