Some may find comfort in reflecting that the distinction between an eliminative and an explicative physicalism is unreal.

The familiar material objects may not be all that is real, but they are admirable examples.

One man's antinomy is another man's falsidical paradox, give or take a couple of thousand years.

It is one of the consolations of philosophy that the benefit of showing how to dispense with a concept does not hinge on dispensing with it.

Life is what the least of us make the most of us feel the least of us make the most of.

Physical objects are conceptually imported into the situation as convenient intermediaries not by definition in terms of experience, but simply as irreducible posits comparable, epistemologically, to the gods of Homer . . . For my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer's gods; and I consider it a scientific error to believe otherwise. But in point of epistemological footing, the physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind. Both sorts of entities enter our conceptions only as cultural posits.

To be is to be the value of a variable.