I fear that, in the end, the famous debate among materialists, idealists, and dualists amounts to a merely verbal dispute that is more a matter for the linguist than for the speculative philosopher.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
You don't talk to a linguist without having what you say taken down and used in evidence against you at some point in time.
I believe in poetic discourse, in the value of speech in a non-naturalistic way; it's speculative.
Fools, most linguists. Damn all to say in one language, so they learn another and say damn all in that.
There are few circumstances which so strongly distinguish the philosopher, as the calmness with which he can reply to criticisms he may think undeservedly severe.
Linguistics is very much a science. It's a human science, one of the human sciences. And it's one of the more interesting human sciences.
Language should find itself in the physical world, and not end up locked in an idea in somebody's head.
You know how much I am inclined to explain all disputes among philosophical schools as merely verbal disputes or at least to derive them originally from verbal disputes.
The novelist, he's not a philosopher, not a technician of spoken language. He's someone who writes, above all, and through the novel asks questions.
A philosopher is, no doubt, entitled to examine even those distinctions that are to be found in the structure of all languages... in that case, such a distinction may be imputed to a vulgar error, which ought to be corrected in philosophy.
Language is froth on the surface of thought.