We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.
Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!
There would be no society if living together depended upon understanding each other.
One of the weaknesses in the cooperative is that it has never been sufficiently leavened by the imagination. This is a quick-silver faculty, and likely to be a cause of worry to any collective settlement.
Living en famille provides the strongest motives for rudeness combined with the maximum opportunity for displaying it.
Living together is an art.
The concept of two people living together for 25 years without a serious dispute suggests a lack of spirit only to be admired in sheep.
On a group of theories one can found a school; but on a group of values one can found a culture, a civilization, a new way of living together among men.
The richer we have become materially, the poorer we become morally and spiritually. We have learned to fly in the air like birds and swim in the sea like fish, but we have not learned the simple art of living together as brothers.
For eons, humans have struggled to find less destructive ways of living together.
In working class districts, you had several families living together in the one house, and it was very difficult to get a house, because the politicians who controlled housing were doing so in a very discriminatory fashion.
There is probably nothing like living together for blinding people to each other.
I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.
In the old days, one married a wife; now one forms a company with a female partner, or moves in to live with a friend. And then one seduces the partner, or defiles the friend.
The selection process has been powerful enough to produce one indisputable outcome: the family is a universal human institution. . . . In virtually every society into which historians or anthropologists have inquired, one finds people living together on the basis of kinship ties and having responsibility for raising children. . . . Even in societies where men and women have relatively unrestricted sexual access to one another beginning at an early age, marriage is still the basis for family formation. It is desired by the partners and expected by society.
The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together.... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.... No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children... Families will be finally destroyed only when a revolutionary social and economic organization permits people's needs for love and security to be met in ways that do not impose divisions of labor, or any external roles, at all.
Do you think your mother and I should have lived comfortably so long together, if ever we had been married? Baggage!
Democracy does not create strong ties between people. But it does make living together easier.
So we must lay it down that the association which is a state exists not for the purpose of living together but for the sake of noble actions.
We're losing social skills, the human interaction skills, how to read a person's mood, to read their body language, how to be patient until the moment is right to make or press a point. Too much exclusive use of electronic information dehumanises what is a very, very important part of community life and living together.
or simply:
