Some philosophers see into themselves, and some into their times; still others forge an alliance with the future.

Darwinism is not a sufficient condition for a phenomenon like Nazism but I think it's certainly a necessary one.

Aristotelian logic is massive and marmoreal, but every monument accumulates graffiti.

The desire to see and the desire to ratify what one has seen are desires at odds with one another, if only because they proceed from separate places in the imagination.

The calculus is the story this [the Western] world first told itself as it became the modern world.

No distinction in kind rather than degree between ourselves and the chimps? No distinction? Seriously, folks? Here is a simple operational test: the chimpanzees invariably are the one behind the bars of their cages.

If moral statements are about something, then the universe is not quite as science suggests it is, since physical theories, having said nothing about God, say nothing about right or wrong, good or bad. To admit this would force philosophers to confront the possibility that the physical sciences offer a grossly inadequate view of reality. And since philosophers very much wish to think of themselves as scientists, this would offer them an unattractive choice between changing their allegiances or accepting their irrelevance.