Joseph Kosuth (1945) American conceptual artist
Joseph Kosuth in: Arthur R. Rose, “Four Interviews,” Arts Magazine (February, 1969).
Source: Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology (1950), Ch. 3. What does acceptance of a kind of entities mean?
Joseph Kosuth (1945) American conceptual artist
Joseph Kosuth in: Arthur R. Rose, “Four Interviews,” Arts Magazine (February, 1969).
Rudolf Carnap (1891–1970) German philosopher
Source: Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology (1950), Ch. 5. Conclusion
Rudolf Carnap (1891–1970) German philosopher
Source: Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology (1950), Ch. 3. What does acceptance of a kind of entities mean?
Meir Kahane (1932–1990) American/Israeli political activist and rabbi
G-d's Law: an Interview with Rabbi Meir Kahane https://web.archive.org/web/20090219141224/http://kahane.org/meir/interview.htm
“The most important question a human being has to face… What is it? The question, Why are we here?”
Elie Wiesel (1928–2016) writer, professor, political activist, Nobel Laureate, and Holocaust survivor
"“Why Are We Here?”, in The Watchtower (2006) http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2006768?q=Elie+Wiesel&p=par
John Twelve Hawks book The Traveler
Source: Fourth Realm Trilogy (2005-2009), The Traveler (2005), Ch. 2
Charlie Brooker (1971) journalist, broadcaster and writer from England
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1963337,00.html <br class="br">The Guardian, 4 December 2006, When it comes to psychics, my stance is hardcore: they must die alone in windowless cells http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1963337,00.html <br class="br">Guardian columns
Thomas Weber (historian) (1974) German historian
Source: Becoming Hitler: The Making of a Nazi (2017), p. 64
Jacob Bronowski (1908–1974) Polish-born British mathematician
Part 3: "The Sense of Human Dignity", §3 (p. 56) <!-- I find this cited in several places but not actually quoted in full anywhere. -->
Science and Human Values (1956, 1965)
Context: Positivists and analysts alike believe that the words is and ought belong to different worlds, so that sentences which are constructed with is usually have verifiable meaning, but sentences constructed with ought never have. This is because Ludwig Wittgenstein's unit, and Bertrand Russell's unit, is one man; all British empiricist philosophy is individualist. And it is of course clear that if the only criterion of true and false which a man accepts is that man's, then he has no base for social agreement. The question of how man ought to behave is a social question, which always involves several people; and if he accepts no evidence and no judgment except his own, he has no tools with which to frame an answer.