To 'see both sides' of a problem is the surest way to prevent its complete solution. Because there are always more than two sides.
If you are an Arabic-speaking, Greek-Orthodox going to a French school it makes you deeply sceptical if you have to listen to three different accounts of the Crusades - one from the Muslim side, one from the Greek side and one from the Catholic side.
There are three sides to every story: my side, your side, and the truth. And no one is lying. Memories shared serve each one differently.
We have learned that the various schools of [economic] thought all have important elements of truth in them. But none of them is by itself a sufficient explanation of what goes on in the economy.
We have abandoned the claim to have a monopoly on the truth.
I've always felt that a person's intelligence is directly reflected by the number of conflicting points of view he can entertain simultaneously on the same topic.
Pluralism is political polytheism…. a unitary society cannot assimilate a welter of competing, incommensurate moral claims.
Anyone who thinks they have a monopoly on truth, and there is only one way to see the world, always gets us into trouble.
We all look at the same object in different ways.
The better you hear a thing put, the more certain you are there's another view.
My own eyes are not enough for me; I will see through those of others.
In any case, I would never make a film that was only one thing. Even if it's my warmest, most romantic film, I still want it to have the more cynical view of things, showing the irony and absurdity of things that we consider normal.
An apology for the devil: it must be remembered that we have heard one side of the case. God has written all the books.
Politically I don't believe anymore that we can only have one voice to a story, it's like having one radio station to represent a country.
Nothing's beautiful from every point of view.
As the Chinese will tell you, history depends on your point of view.
I really am opinionated, but not for long. I have found myself coming off of what I think of something because the guy I'm talking to makes better sense than I am. I have so many points of view, I can't keep track of 'em, because I talk to too many people... I'm not so opinionated that I won't budge.
Faulkner's 'As I Lay Dying' had an immense effect on me, and most of my novels bear the burn marks of this experience, those short chapters with their conflicting points of view, truth expressed by multiple perspectives. The other attractive thing about 'As I Lay Dying' was the way it gave rich voices to the poor.
That's a very complicated issue [with Donal Trump supporters]. There's things going on with people that we're not privy to, we don't understand. These aren't just a bunch of bad people. That isn't how it works.
When the record of any human life is set down, there are three pairs of eyes who see it in a different light. There is the life as I see it. as others see it, and as God sees it.
The more people there are, the more things they see, and in them there is a more perceptive and discerning reason than in one person: therefore, in this respect, it is better to be ruled by many
One man's word is no man's word; we should quietly hear both sides.
You can be outraged by what the Koch brothers do with their money in politics and you can appreciate what they contribute to hospitals and medical research, and you can do that at the same time and still retain an ability to function.
Multiple descriptions are better than one.
There's nothing sacred about the book you've written. The Bible says there's safety in a multitude of counselors. The movie is the movie, and the book is the book. They're different critters, and each must stand on their own merits.
