When it comes to the real operational issues that govern our understanding of physical reality, ontological definitions of classical philosophers are, in my opinion, sterile.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Classical philosophical theism maintained the ontological distinction between God and creative world that is necessary for any genuine theism by conceiving them to be of different substances, with particular attributes predicated of each.
I find purer philosophy in a Poem than in a Conclusion of Geometry, a chemical analysis, or a physical law.
Since Plato, we have been considering the nature of knowledge, the meaning of meaning and the status of the physical world.
The dynamic element in my philosophy, taken as a whole, can be seen as an obstinate and untiring battle against the spirit of abstraction.
Contemporary science is based on the philosophy of materialism, which claims that all reality is material or physical.
Specialized meaninglessness has come to be regarded, in certain circles, as a kind of hallmark of true science.
To begin with, we put the proposition: pure phenomenology is the science of pure consciousness.
I always see that there's a - from a philosophical point of view - there's the appearance of things that everybody wants you to think is happening, then there's the reality underneath it.
The profoundest thoughts of the philosophers have something trickle about them. A lot disappears in order for something to suddenly appear in the palm of the hand.
Much of what Karl Popper contributed to the philosophy of science has now passed into mainstream thought, into the currency of that nebulous, tricky ontology known as 'common sense.'
No opposing quotes found.