Famous quotes

Quotes by famous people, credited to who said them. Your own quotes must not match any of these. More are added all the time. 1,158,269 quotes Who coined it · How we decide

English Italiano Polski עברית Français Português فارسی Español 中文 Русский Deutsch العربية हिन्दी 日本語 Ελληνικά Latina

Umberto Galimberti

133 quotes

“Umberto Galimberti, Umberto Galimberti racconta Freud, Jung e la psicoanalisi, Gruppo Editoriale L'Espresso, Roma, 2011.”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“The vampire is a dead person who does not want to die, one of the many imaginative reflections that express the difficulty for individuals and groups to accept death which, as Freud reminds us, returns in dreams and runs through primitive communities, terrifying them with the fear of contagion, so that the dead must be buried, even if the earth does not hide them sufficiently and, above all, does not eradicate them from the soul. The vampire is therefore a dead person who returns, because for the soul he is not definitively dead. With blood, which is life itself, he snatches virgins, images of the soul, who struggle in the arms of vampires to resist death.”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“(Regarding the detractors of the Cirinnà bill and Italian Family Day) Ultimately, it is essentially the emotional relationship, i.e. love, that establishes relationships. Let's stop thinking that homosexuals are essentially “sexual”. First and foremost, they are emotional beings, they have meaningful cohabiting relationships just like heterosexual families. They can very well adopt children because it is not necessarily true that two people of the same sex are “bad”. And children need love, not necessarily sexual differences. Let them stop saying that the family is made up of a man and a woman, because this is a fundamentally materialistic view, defended by Catholics who always talk about the spirit. Because if the criterion for being together is simply to bring children into the world, then this is the most sinister materialism. Whereas being together also means loving each other, dedicating oneself to the task of raising children. [...] Children are children not because you sleep with a woman and the woman sleeps with a man, they are children because you raise them, because you are together with them, because you answer their questions, because you pay attention to their needs. This is what “fatherhood” and “motherhood” mean, whoever performs them.”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“I had the advantage of being born poor, into a family of ten children, with a deceased father, a mother who was a teacher, 60,000 lire a month, and ten of us plus my mother to live on. So we all had to start working from an early age. I was destined to become a metalworker because I didn't do very well at school. Then a priest saved me by putting me in a seminary, where I was able to study, without much success, to the point that when I reached the second year of secondary school, I couldn't tolerate the authority above me. I left the seminary and set about completing five years of middle school and three years of high school on my own. I took a few trigonometry lessons because I didn't really understand how it worked, and I sat the final exams on my own, without any school behind me. [...] I got 10 in philosophy, 10 in history, and my essay was published in the Gazzetta Varesina: a tremendous success. So I started to believe in myself, but mind you, always starting from a position of poverty, because there are people who are born university professors in the cradle, but I was not born a university professor in the cradle. Then I wanted to study medicine, but it was too long and there was no money. Thanks to that high school diploma, I won two scholarships: one from the Catholic University and one from the Province of Milan; 400,000 lire and 400,000 lire made 800,000 lire, and with that I said, 'Oh well, then I'll study philosophy. Yes, I got top marks, but that's not enough to motivate someone to study philosophy. But did you like philosophy? I had some exceptional teachers, who no longer exist.”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“(About abortion) Kant taught us that man must always be treated as an end and never as a means. Forcing women to give birth every time they become pregnant means treating women's bodies as a means of reproduction, but treating women's bodies as a means of reproduction conflicts with Kant's teaching, which is not only Kant's but also Christian teaching, that man should be treated as an end and not as a means, that man is a person and not an instrument of procreation. The problem arises again in Italy because of the general subordination of Italian politicians to the demands of the Catholic Church: when I see both the right and the left genuflecting before the Catholic Church, I wonder: where is the Italian State? By definition, like any state, it must be secular, meaning that secular is a Greek word that means “common good”. So the secular person is the one who must take charge of everyone's needs, not the needs of a principle of faith: this is a very important thing. Secular people believe that they cannot have a moral code that does not derive from the will of God, but a moral code that derives from the will of God is typical of primitive moral codes, where men, not knowing how to make laws for themselves, had to anchor it to a higher will. But then we had the Enlightenment, and we began to reason; even if with little courage, we know how to use our brains. And so at this point it is quite possible to construct a secular morality, based first of all on that principle of Kant that we have mentioned, and then on another very important principle: that morality is made for men, not men for morality. This is another quote from Kant that reproduces exactly, in different words, what Jesus Christ said: the Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath. In other words, woe betide anyone who bends man to the law and uses the law as a judgement against man, because what needs to be saved is not the principle of the law, but man himself.”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“I had begun to wonder whether philosophy was a great defence against madness. [...] And I am still convinced of this today, because I am convinced that neurotics study psychology and psychotics study philosophy. Because if we consider who enrols in philosophy? People who enrol in philosophy are those who want to solve problems without going to someone else. [...] By every philosopher I mean a madman who wants to play around with his madness a little, but at the same time does not want to go mad and therefore arms himself to keep it at bay through a series of sound arguments, which are learned here... to keep madness at bay. :*from a conversation in the “'Master's Degree in Communication and Non-Verbal Languages”', Ca' Foscari University of Venice, December 2007.”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“Socrates said he knew nothing, precisely because if he knew nothing, he questioned everything. Philosophy arises from questioning the obvious: we do not accept what is, because if we accept what is, as Plato reminds us, we will become a flock, sheep. So, we do not accept what is. Philosophy arises as a critical instance, not acceptance of the obvious, not resignation to what is now fashionable to call healthy realism. I realise that, realistically, someone who enrols in philosophy is doing something crazy, but perhaps if there were no such crazy people, the world would remain as it is... as it is. So philosophy plays a very important role, not because it is competent in something, but simply because it does not accept something. And this non-acceptance of what is does not express itself through revolutions or revolts, it expresses itself through an attempt to find the contradictions of the present and of what exists, and to argue for possible solutions: in practice, thinking. And the day we abdicate thinking, we have abdicated everything.”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“In this way, personal merit ends up being the least significant factor in finding a job, resulting in personal frustration and the poor functioning of society, where it is only by chance or pure coincidence that the right person is found in the right place. We can thus understand why the fight against the mafia will never be won in Italy, because the mafia is nothing more than a gruesome version of widespread customs, where kinship, acquaintances, the exchange of favours, in a word, the “familistic” network prevails over the recognition of personal values and citizenship rights. What can be done? Very little can be done until the level of civilisation is raised, with the recognition of the value of individuals as its first pillar. In this regard, the Americans could teach us something and, given that today's widespread culture proclaims itself pro-American, we could import from them this one virtue in which they excel. But perhaps our pro-Americanism only means doing our business under their protection.”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“Still in accordance with God's command to man to have dominion over nature (Genesis 1:1-5), modern science will eventually take this dominion away from God, who, being less and less accessible to reason, ends up being increasingly confined to faith. Taking the place of God, reason becomes the legislator; it does not “learn” from nature, as was the case when nature was considered the unfolding design of God, but, as Kant says, it forces nature to answer its questions. In this way, nature has no meaning in itself other than that which it assumes within the human project, which tends to make it a resource available to man. Today, science, not in those who practise it, but in those (and that is all of us) who place their hopes in it, if not for salvation, then certainly for health, healing, progress and growth, continues to feed on religious ideology, even if its actual practice disregards this ideology and proceeds as if God did not exist.”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“Today, reason has found its highest expression in science, which does not conflict with faith, provided that faith renounces its claim to be the truth. Science has no relation to truth, because what it produces are only “exact” propositions, i.e. “obtained from (ex actu)” premises that have been anticipated hypothetically. The fact that the hypothesis is confirmed by experiment only tells us that we know the operational validity of that hypothesis, not the nature of the thing investigated with that hypothesis, because, when questioned, the thing did not show its face, but simply responded to the anticipated hypothesis.”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“From the place where he had been imprisoned awaiting sentencing, Socrates was invited by his disciples to escape. But his response was peremptory: "I have taught you all your lives to obey the laws, and now you invite me to break them at the end of my life. What I had to teach you, I have communicated to you. My cycle is complete." There is no trace of anguish, despair or melancholy for a life that has come to an end, only consistency between teaching and life. Even the drama of the moment is subservient to the needs of teaching, to make it more persuasive, more effective. And if the moment is the eve of death, it must be faced with dignity. ‘But finally, Socrates, tell us how we should bury you,’ his disciples press him. ‘As you wish,’ he replied. And, laughing quietly, he continued: ‘O friends, I cannot convince Crito that the real Socrates is the one who is now discussing with you and not the one whom he will soon see dead’ (Phaedo 115 e). His disciples begged him to wait, as others had done, until sunset. But Socrates wants to avoid making himself ridiculous by clinging to life when there is no more. He drinks the poison in one gulp "without fear, without changing the colour or expression of his face, but, looking at his disciples as usual with his bull's eyes, he said: 'What do you think? Is it lawful to make libations to someone with this drink or not?'‘ (Phaedo 117 b). Then he resumed walking until he felt his legs grow heavy, then he lay down, and when his limbs began to grow cold, he said: ’'Crito, we owe a cock to Aesculapius; give it to him and do not forget it. “It will be done,” replied Crito, “but see if you have anything else to say.” Socrates did not answer this question" (Phaedo 118 a).”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“The face is the first sign from which the ethics of a society originate. [...] The face of a mature person is an act of truth, while the mask behind which a face treated with cosmetic surgery hides is a falsification that reveals the insecurity of those who do not have the courage to expose themselves to view with their own face. Preferring a showgirl to a mature person means preferring the anonymity of a body to a body shaped by character, which in mature age appears in its uniqueness, finally allowing us to know what a person really is in their specific uniqueness. [...] It ends up feeding into the myth of youth that views old age as a prelude to death. (p. 199)”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“This is the programme of Giordano Bruno's magic, according to which 'since no part of the universe is more important than another”, man is not granted that primacy, first biblical and then Cartesian, which sees him as “possessor and ruler of the world”, but simply as “cooperator of active nature (operanti naturae homines cooperatores esse possint)”. This difference is decisive because it unmasks the underlying kinship that, beyond disputes, links the Christian tradition to scientific agnosticism. Both share the belief that man, possessing a soul as religion would have it or rational faculties as science would have it, is, among the entities of nature, the privileged entity that can subjugate all things to himself. To this Cartesian emphasis on the subject (Ego cogito), prepared by the Judeo-Christian tradition (according to which man is the image of God and therefore has the right to dominate all things), Giordano Bruno contrasts a path radically different from that which would characterise European thought for centuries. Not the primacy of man, but the primacy of the ever-unstable and ever-reconstructed balance between subject and object, between man and nature. Magic, which is not power over nature, but the discovery of the bonds that chain all things together, according to Heraclitus' model of “invisible harmony”, is Bruno's philosophical proposal, antithetical both to mathematical science, which feeds on human planning, and to religion, which, while subordinating man to God, does not hesitate to consider him, from the day of his expulsion from the Garden of Eden, the ruler of all things.”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“Reason ‘knows’ what it says, while faith ‘believes’ in what it says. And since I do not “believe” that two plus two equals four because I ‘know’ it, there is no relationship between faith and reason, nor any hierarchical subordination, as claimed by men of faith who place their beliefs above their knowledge. In fact, I cannot ‘believe’ in what I ‘know’, and I cannot “know” if what I ‘believe’ is true. In reality, the area of faith shrinks as knowledge advances. Once, as Hippocrates reminds us, epilepsy was called the ‘sacred disease’; today, no doctor or patient would think of attributing the origin of this disease to God or the gods. :*From “”Faith as a remedy for senselessness“”, “'repubblica.it”', November 2006.”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“What if “philo-sophy” did not mean “love of wisdom” but “wisdom of love”, just as “theology” means discourse on God and not the word of God, or “metrology” means the science of measurement and not the measurement of science? Why this inversion in the sequence of words for philosophy? Why has philosophy in the West been structured as a logic that formalises reality, withdrawing from the world of life to shut itself away in universities where, among initiates, knowledge that has no impact on existence and how to live it is transmitted from master to disciple? Could this be why, from Plato, who describes philosophy as “the exercise of death”, to Heidegger, who insists so much on being-towards-death, philosophers have fallen more in love with knowing how to die than with knowing how to live? (12 April 2008)”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“In fact, where production does not tolerate interruptions, goods “need” to be consumed, and if the need is not spontaneous, if there is no perceived need for these goods, then this need must be “produced”. In an opulent society like ours, where everyone's identity is increasingly tied to the objects they own, which are not only replaceable but “must” be replaced, we may begin to feel, beneath the sea of advertising that is poured over us every day, a sort of call for destruction, a form of nihilism due to the fact, as Gunther Anders writes, that: “Humanity that treats the world as a disposable world also treats itself as disposable humanity”..”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“In this regard, I would like to recall that Thomas Aquinas, commenting on Paul of Tarsus, says that faith, unlike science expressed by human reason, leads in captivitatem omnem intellectum, that is, it makes the intellect a prisoner of content that is not evident, and therefore foreign to it (alienus), so that the intellect is restless (nondum est quietatus) in the face of science, towards which it feels in infirmitate et timore et tremore mult”. Where has this Thomistic prudence gone, which does not allow us to immediately identify faith with truth? And if Catholics already possess the truth, what is the point of studying and teaching philosophy if they already possess the truth that philosophy seeks to find? What do they say to Heidegger when he writes that when philosophy is accompanied by an adjective, as in the case of ‘Christian philosophy’, we are faced with a square circle or, as Heidegger puts it, a ‘wooden iron’? And finally, what kind of dialogue is possible with a Christian if he is already convinced that he possesses the truth?”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“If it is true that we are able to understand our time even without the word “God”, it is equally true that we would not understand it if we removed the word “Technology”, the meaning of which has been clearly explained by Sergio Givone. Heidegger said some essential things on this subject. He illustrated on several occasions that technology has brought the humanistic era to an end, so that man is no longer the “subject” of history, but the “functionary” of technical apparatuses, by which he is in some way “employed” (be-stellte). Indeed, he risks becoming raw material, indeed the most important raw material (der Mensch der wichtigste Rohstoff ist), from the point of view of absolute usability. (p. 60)”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“The Church considers itself the sole repository of ethics. Ethics as the exclusive prerogative of religion brings Christianity considerably closer to the Islamic mentality. Fortunately, we have had the Enlightenment and the secular state, which have partially immunised us. On the part of the Church, however, there is a tendency to deny that ethics is a human quality, as Kant said, and instead to assert that it derives from religious dogma. Humans would be incapable of producing morality. At this rate, we end up with a theocratic state. But morals are nothing more than rules of coexistence aimed at reducing conflict. Humans can give themselves these rules: ethics is an anthropological category.”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“In ‘The House of Psyche,’ it is noted that the problems that exist today can no longer be addressed through psychoanalysis, as they once were. Psychoanalytic tools treated the discomfort of the individual, the discomfort of civilisation in the sense of the miserable conditions in which people lived, in what I call “the society of discipline”, where the game was between the desire of those who wanted to break the law and those who wanted to suppress this desire. Today, this is no longer the scenario of pain. The scenario of pain, especially under the influence of American culture, which pushes us to achieve our goals in the shortest possible time, produces situations of anxiety determined by demand. No longer the traditional psychoanalytic demand (what is allowed and what is forbidden), but what can I do, what am I capable of doing? This inability to achieve goals when the bar is set higher and higher creates a sense of inadequacy, of a lack of meaning and, ultimately, beyond the technique that has no purpose but simply functions within an absolute, radical lack of horizons in view of who knows what.”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“So let's suppose that God speaks: are we sure we understand what he says? When I give a lecture, I am convinced that my students, whether there are thirty or fifty of them, understand thirty or fifty different things. Because language is immediately a translation: when you listen to me, you translate what I say into your world view. And so this translation means that you understand something I did not say. What's more, God; I don't know: some people hear him, some people believe he speaks to them. But let's be clear: did you really hear him with your ears, did he say things to you when he met you, or do you imagine that those are the words of God?”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“I am thinking of something: philosophy is always translated as love of wisdom. But this is not the case, it is the opposite: it is not love of wisdom, it is wisdom of love. And so the figure of love is first and foremost intersubjectivity, it is exchange. That is, truth must not emerge as a doctrinal body: this is wisdom, not philosophy. It must arise from dialogue. From dialogue between two people. Dialogue with the other and above all with that other who is woman. Why is it that no woman ever appears in the history of philosophy: what is this being sidelined? Perhaps women navigate in regions that are not overly logical, which frighten men? These are questions I ask myself.”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“Shame is a fundamental feeling. Shame [In Italian: vergogna] comes from vere orgognam: I fear exposure. Today, exposure is no longer feared. So what happens? If I behave in a transgressive manner, well, what's the harm? I fulfil the hidden desires of each of us and expose them, how clever I am. And so at this point, the codes of good and evil are no longer clearly visible. Kant said that everyone feels good and evil naturally, he used the word “feeling”. Today, this is no longer true. Simply put, if someone has the courage to show themselves to be vicious, if they have the courage to show themselves to be transgressive, they are a person of value, at least they have courage, they have interpreted the hidden feelings of each of us. This now means, I would not say the collapse of collective morality, but even of individual morality, internal morality, psychological morality. Therefore, the end of times.”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“Today, however, there is a much more subtle form of power, which is essentially the control of thought, the control of ideas. This is very dangerous because when I control the ideas of all those who are subordinate to power, they think like power, they applaud it, they want it, they desire it, they adore it. Because they think like it. And then the second degree, even more pernicious, is the control of feelings. There are television programmes that teach young people how to love, how to hate, how to fall in love, how to get angry. When I have established control over feelings, I have absolute power. Because not only do I think as the television media has taught me to think, but I feel as they want me to feel. At this point, I have achieved complete control over the world in which I operate.”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“So sex as the source of life and life as the reproduction of harmony. The sexual act as an act of creation where one does not get caught up, as we do, in births or abortions, but where at a certain point one celebrates the meaning of heaven, earth and the ten thousand things that inhabit heaven and earth in composed harmony. Why do we Westerners believe in the stars and horoscopes that fall from the stars and have forgotten that our slow, agile or violent acts change the stars, their balance, their light, their rotation? Man's act creates harmony or disharmony in the universe, and our sex, as a composing act, can become a fading not so much of ourselves, but of the cosmos that does not ignore us. (p. 219)”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“Sexuality is a risk where the individual gambles with their identity and society with its order. To avoid this risk, we resort to the imagination, which, in a hallucinatory way, allows us to live illusory experiences that we do not have the courage to dare. Thus, the ego experiences the thrill of its identity being put at stake without losing it, and society experiences the turmoil of disorder that does not, however, affect its order. The imaginary serves this purpose, not to enhance sexuality, as is believed, but to appease it at that phantasmagorical level that leaves reality intact as it has been constructed. (p. 208)”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“Sexuality does not belong to the narrative of the ego because, in its presence, the soul undergoes a dislocation which, by shifting the regime of its rules, weakens self-possession. Its plot is interrupted by something excessive which, by breaking the continuity of speech and the order of discourse, leads to escape routes that the ego and the reason that governs it are unable to pursue. Drives and desires, in fact, bursting in as uncontrolled signifiers in the established order of meanings, bring to light other connections, other plots, other intertwining threads whose knots sink into the other part of ourselves. (p. 207)”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“Then came Christianity and with it the curse of the flesh. Christianity broke the mandala, the four that make up harmony. Three are gathered together and separated from the fourth, the devil, whom iconography began to depict with the features of Pan, the Greek god of sex who, at his favourite time of day, chased the nymphs of the forest with his goat's hooves and broken horns. Christianity kept sexuality in check in the West, where heaven was separated from earth and spirit from flesh. If one fine day we stopped condemning pornography, which is nothing more than the flesh in its solitude, and began to condemn those who have reduced the flesh to solitude, separating it from heaven to make it the antechamber of hell, the first circle of the “'Comedy”'. (p. 220)”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“The sunset of the West is the fulfilment of a meaning contained in the word that says: “'land of the evening”', “'occasum”', the last glimmer of that light which, rising at dawn, has dominated the day. The word expresses a destiny that cannot be escaped. The sun cannot be stopped. Sunset is inevitable. The West is the land destined to host this sunset. But what is the meaning contained in the word? Is “setting” the inevitable decline of light or is it the unconscious withdrawal of the earth from the light? To grasp the meaning of this question is to decide between waiting and choosing. (Introduction to Book Two: “Western Thought”, p. 277)”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“We still carry within us the traits of pre-technological man, who acted with a view to goals inscribed in a horizon of meaning, with a wealth of ideas of his own and a set of feelings with which he identified. The age of technology has abolished this “humanistic” scenario, and questions of meaning remain unanswered, not because technology is not yet sufficiently perfected, but because finding answers to such questions is not within its remit. Technology, in fact, does not tend towards a goal, does not promote meaning, does not open up scenarios of salvation, does not redeem, does not reveal the truth: technology “works”. (p. 21)”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“What does this crisis consist of? A change in the sign of the future: from the “future-promise” to the “future-threat”. And since the psyche is healthy when it is open to the future (unlike the depressed psyche, which is entirely focused on the past, and the manic psyche, which is entirely focused on the present), when the future closes its doors or, if it opens them, it is only to offer uncertainty, precariousness, insecurity and unease, then, as Heidegger says, “the terrible has already happened”, because initiatives fade away, hopes appear empty, demotivation grows, and vital energy implodes. (p. 26)”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“The lack of a promising future deprives parents and teachers of the authority to show the way. A “contractual” relationship is then established between adolescents and adults, as a result of which parents and teachers feel constantly obliged to justify their choices to young people, who may or may not accept what is proposed to them in an “egalitarian” relationship. But the relationship between young people and adults is not symmetrical, and treating adolescents as equals means not containing them and, above all, leaving them alone to face their own impulses and the anxiety that comes with them. (p. 29)”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source
“If learning cannot take place without emotional gratification, then neglecting emotions, or addressing them in such a hasty manner as to be counterproductive, is the greatest risk that a student faces today when going to school. And this is no small risk because, if it is true that school is the highest experience in which models of centuries of culture are offered, if these models remain contents of the mind without becoming formative ideas of the heart, the heart will begin to wander without horizon in that restless and depressed nothingness that even the noise of youth music cannot mask. (p. 38)”
Umberto Galimberti (born 1942) wikiquote, CC BY-SA 4.0 source