A Quote by Susan Orlean

The iPhone calendar isn't bad, but it isn't great, either. It only offers a day view and a month view - it doesn't have a week view, which drives me crazy. — © Susan Orlean
The iPhone calendar isn't bad, but it isn't great, either. It only offers a day view and a month view - it doesn't have a week view, which drives me crazy.
One person's view is not to be sniffed at. Everybody is entitled to have their view and people are entitled to have a different view from the view the [American] Government has arrived at and they're entitled to express their view.
If you look at the back pages of 'New York Times Magazine,' and they talk about these 6.5-million-dollar condos with a great view, like you're going to pay for a great view. Well, the top floor of the projects have a great view, too.
There are views. And what we see in a view is not necessarily what is in the view, all that is in the view. We have to separate, to some extent, the perceiver from that which is perceived or we have to lose all distinction whatsoever.
There is the view I call penal non-substitution, or the penal example view. (It is also called the Governmental View in textbooks of theology.) This is often associated with Arminian theology stemming from the great Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius. However, the view was taken up by [Jonathan] Edwards's disciples in New England, who developed a Calvinistic strand of the doctrine.
By the time any view becomes a majority view, it is no longer the best view: somebody will already have advanced beyond the point which the majority have reached.
My thing is this: You've got to talk about politics because it's out there. But I try to respect the fact that even if you don't have my views, I still respect your view. I may dog your view, but I'll respect that you have that view. And it's OK to come back at me to defend your view.
But every point of view is a point of blindness: it incapacitates us for every other point of view. From a certain point of view, the room in which I write has no door. I turn around. Now I see the door, but the room has no window. I look up. From this point of view, the room has no floor. I look down; it has no ceiling. By avoiding particular points of view we are able to have an intuition of the whole. The ideal for a Christian is to become holy, a word which derives from “whole.
From a high-tech point of view, an agriculture point of view, a goods-and-services point of view, a great deal of [committee Democrats] have no choice except to support allowing America access to these markets.
There is no longer a Christian mind ... the modern Christian has succumbed to secularization. He accepts religion - its morality, its worship, its spiritual culture; but he rejects the religious view of life, the view which sets all earthly issues within the context of the eternal, the view which relates all human problems social, political, cultural to the doctrinal foundations of the Christian Faith, the view which sees all things here below in terms of God's supremacy and earth's transitoriness, in terms of Heaven and Hell.
I don't view myself as powerful. I mean, I view myself as a person that like everybody else is fighting for survival. That's all I view myself as and I really view myself now as somewhat of a messenger. You know, this is a massive thing that's going on. These are millions and millions of people that have been disenfranchised from this country. I was in front of a group yesterday, at least 25,000 people. The place was going crazy, and I said, I'm like the messenger.
Brace yourself! If we take in what the Holy Father is saying in his Theology of the Body, we will never view ourselves, view others, view the Church, the Sacraments, grace, God, heaven, marriage, the celibate vocation...we will never view the world the same way again.
So I wanted to explore all points of view of that, not just the girl's but his point of view as well. Only by directing it could I explore all the points of view.
If the view is very beautiful, do not sit and watch; go to the view, be in the view!
In my view, philosophers have shown a great deal more respect for the first-person point of view than it deserves. There's a lot of empirical work on the various psychological mechanisms by way of which the first-person point of view is produced, and, when we understand this, I believe, we can stop romanticising and mythologising the first-person perspective.
History teaches us that a given view has been abandoned in favor of another by all men, or by all competent men, or perhaps by only the most vocal men; it does not teach us whether the change was sound or whether the rejected view deserved to be rejected. Only an impartial analysis of the view in question, an analysis that is not dazzled by the victory or stunned by the defeat of the adherents of the view concerned - could teach us anything regarding the worth of the view and hence regarding the meaning of the historical change.
I've always been a big proponent of point of view in cinema. Not necessarily that the point of view has to be subjective, but that in all great films the point of view has been taken into account and established.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!