I don't feel that it is necessary to know exactly what I am.

If I open a book and see that the author is accusing an adversary of "infantile leftism" I shut it again right away. That's not my way of doing things; I don't belong to the world of people who do things that way. I insist on this difference as something essential: a whole morality is at stake; the one that concerns the search for truth and the relation to the other.

You may have killed God beneath the weight of all that you have said; but don't imagine that, with all that you are saying, you will make a man that will live longer than he.

My role - and that is too emphatic a word - is to show people that they are much freer than they feel, that people accept as truth, as evidence, some themes which have been built up at a certain moment during history, and that this so-called evidence can be criticized and destroyed.

As the archaeology of our thought easily shows, man is an invention of recent date. And one perhaps nearing its end.

What desire can be contrary to nature since it was given to man by nature itself?

People know what they do; frequently they know why they do what they do; but what they don't know is what what they do does.