Quotes About Philosophy

I'm curious about life, period.

to know that an inference is deductively valid is to know that there are no situations in which the premisses are true and the conclusion is not.

if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be: but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.

or refuting, with his guidance, a famous refutation of the existence of time, will be worth it.

Robert's problem was familiar to Aquinas. He called it ignorantia affectata, cultivated ignorance.

Simulated consciousness" was as oxymoronic as "simulated addition.

Francesca said, "But don't you see? We talk about God for the simple reason that we still want to. There's a deeply ingrained human compulsion to keep using that word, that concept – to keep honing it, rather than discarding it – despite the fact that it no longer means what it did five thousand years ago.

The whole idea of a creator tears itself apart. A universe with conscious beings either finds itself in the dust … or it doesn't. It either makes sense of itself on its own terms, as a self-contained whole … or not at all. There never can, and never will be, Gods.

How do you know which parts of the world are you, in the polises?' 'Are there citizens in Konishi who eat music?' 'Is not having a body like falling all the time, without moving?

Simulated consciousness" was as oxymoronic as "simulated addition.

Whatever elaborate, and grotesquely counter-intuitive, underpinnings there might be to familiar reality, it stubbornly continues to be familiar. When Rutherford showed that atoms were mostly empty space, did the ground become any less solid? The truth itself changes nothing.

I mean, there's got to be an art to expounding the virtues of logical positivism while garrotting Nazis with piano wire, and it looks as if Jarrod started missing their special flair.

There are times when it's worth putting aside the endless myopic navel-gazing that occupies so much literature in order to look out at the universe itself and value it for what it is

Free will is a rationalisation; I can't help making all the right decisions. And all the wrong ones.

Haven't you heard of Occam's Razor: once you have a perfectly simple explanation for something, you don't go looking for ever more complicated ways of explaining the very same thing?

Death never gave meaning to life: it was always the other way round.

What am I? The data? The process that generates it? The relationships between the numbers?

Opponents replied that when you modeled a hurricane, nobody got wet. When you modeled a fusion power plant, no energy was produced. When you modeled digestion and metabolism, no nutrients were consumed – no real digestion took place. So, when you modeled the human brain, why should you expect real thought to occur?

Man is the universe becoming conscious of itself.

Imagine a person who comes in here tonight and argues 'no air exists' but continues to breathe air while he argues. Now intellectually, atheists continue to breathe - they continue to use reason and draw scientific conclusions [which assumes an orderly universe], to make moral judgments [which assumes absolute values] - but the atheistic view of things would in theory make such 'breathing' impossible. They are breathing God's air all the time they are arguing against him.

Without faith, there is no proper understanding by which a man can judge. As Augustine well said, 'I believe in order to understand'.

There is no way to use non-Christian language and logic to arrive at Christian utterances, conclusions, and behavior.

Christianity is reasonable in virtue of the impossibility of the contrary.

To reject revelational epistemology is to commit yourself to defending the truth of autonomous epistemology.