Quotes About Logic

Así es que después de abandonar la razón y la lógica, después de experimentar el aburrimiento real y el temor aterrador, develamos el último misterio de los misterios: la nada. Al final, todo es nada y la nada es todo. Con Heidegger, alcanzamos el nihilismo metafísico.

Afortunadamente, como aprendimos de Hegel, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard y Nietzsche, esta contradicción y este conflicto son una señal más de que la lógica y la razón son impotentes.

In the Logic, Hegel states that this 'unity' of thought and being constitutes the 'element' or 'principle' of logic.7 Logic thus starts from the idea that being is known by pure thought to be intelligible to pure thought.

In Hegel's view, an uncritical, or inadequately critical, approach to the categories takes a certain understanding of them on authority – be it the authority of past philosophers, tradition, common sense or formal logic.

I think (Robert E.) Howard often wrote with his heart, but not always with his head.

trying to cook over the fire, plugging in the lamp before attempting to flip it on, or cranking up the engine before trying to put the car into gear. We

Science depends on dialectic in which only when thesis and antithesis are developed can there be an ultimate synthesis.

Fix this sentence: He put the horse before the cart.

Your dreams will come true, but do not be overly demanding. Be logical – there are not enough mansions for everyone in the world, are there?

Logical thinking can outwit random processing!

The deduction reached by top modern philosophers on this question is that things exist for two reasons: they are either necessary or they were caused.

Doubt the conventional wisdom unless you can verify it with reason and experiment.

Men are very simple, logical people; if you tell us what you like and what you don't like, we'll do anything we can to make sure we live up to your expectations, particularly if we're interested in forging a relationship with you.

In the end, though, science is what matters; scientists not a bit.

Creationists have an argument not with science, but with argument.

It's okay to figure out murder mysteries, but you shouldn't need to figure out code. You should be able to read it.

once gotos are introduced, they spread through the code like termites through a rotting house.

You can do anything with stacks and iteration that you can do with recursion.

few people can understand more than three levels of nested ifs

I have often thought that my instincts were the fools that allowed me to survive so that my "higher functions" could continue. Now I am finding that it is more the other way around. It is my ability to reason that keeps command and allows me to survive, and the things I am surviving for are those that I want by instinct: life, companionship, comfort, play.

Relate your facts compellingly and your argument will tend to take care of itself.

The more you turn up the heat rhetorically, the more you weaken your arguments.

I'm against sloppy, emotional thinking.

The best and safest method of philosophizing seems to be first to inquire diligently into the properties of things, and establishing those properties by experiments, and then to proceed more slowly to hypotheses for the explanation of them.