Who said, roughly : “Man labors, loves his children, and dies”?
Or words to that effect.
Existentialist, isn’t it?
Who said, roughly : “Man labors, loves his children, and dies”?
Or words to that effect.
Existentialist, isn’t it?
I’m thinking Maugham: “I do not believe that I am influenced only by an illusion natural to the man of letters to think that the best pattern of all is the husbandman’s, who ploughs his land and reaps his crop, who enjoys his toil and enjoys his leisure, loves, marries, begets children, and dies.”
Or, as Vernadsky curtly put it: “The cycle of human life is eternal, in the sense in which it is determined by nature. Man is born, grows up, marries, begets children, and dies. It is but natural that he should desire properly to observe the main landmarks of the cycle. In our days of urbanized and mechanized civilization the ceremonies bearing on each link of the chain of life are reduced to a minimum.”
…or, coming back around to Maugham: “He thought of his desire to make a design, intricate and beautiful, out of the myriad, meaningless facts of life: had he not seen also that the simplest pattern, that in which a man was born, worked, married, had children, and died, was likewise the most perfect?”
Said much better by James Rebanks in The Shepherd’s Life:
All close, but not quite there.
How about this?
Still not there.
Hmmmm…