Understanding, however--and sometimes a very considerable depth of it--results from seeing the obstinate difficulties in views which often seem, on other grounds, quite obviously true...Let the reader be warned accordingly, that whenever he hears a philosopher proclaim any metaphysical opinion with great confidence, or hears him asset that something in metaphysics is obvious, or that some metaphysical problem turns only on confusions of concepts or upon the meanings of words, then he can be quite sure that this man is still infinitely far from philosophical understanding. His views appear to him devoid of difficulties only because he stoutly refuses to see difficulties.

Here, as usually in philosophy, the first difficulty is to see that the problem is difficult. If you say to a person untrained in philosophy, "How do you know I have two eyes?" he or she will reply, "What a silly question! I can see you have." It is not to be supposed that, when our inquiry is finished, we shall have arrived at anything radically different from this unphilosophical position. What will have happened will be that we shall have come to see a complicated structure where we thought everything was simple, that we shall have become aware of the penumbra of uncertainty surrounding the situations which inspire no doubt, that we shall find doubt more frequently justified than we supposed, and that even the most plausible premisses will have shown themselves capable of yielding unplausible conclusions. The net result is to substitute articulate hesitation for inarticulate certainty.

Philosophers can never hope finally to formulate these metaphysical first principles. Weakness of insight and deficiencies of language stand in the way inexorably. Words and phrases must be stretched towards a generality foreign to their ordinary usage; and however such elements of language be stabilized as technicalities, they remain metaphors mutely appealing for an imaginative leap.

Susan Blackmore: Filozofların rolünden bahsettin, sence filozofların bundaki yeri ne veya bu noktada bugüne kadar nasıl bir rol oynadılar?

Francis Crick: Filozoflarla alakalı bir sürü espri yapılır, burada onları yapmayacağım. İşin özü, filozoflar güzel sorular sorsalar da cevapları gösterecek teknikten yoksunlar. O nedenle tartışmalarına çok da rağbet etmemek lazım. Nasıl bir ilerleme katettiklerini sorarak da cevaplayabiliriz bu soruyu. Örneğin atomun mahiyeti gibi, zamanında felsefi addedilen birçok sorun artık fiziğin bir parçası haline geldi. Bazıları, filozofların esas amacının, çözülemeyen sorunlarla uğraşmak olduğunu öne sürse de, sorunlar nihayetinde çözüme ulaşıyor ve bu da bilimsel bir yolla gerçekleşiyor. Bir filozofun bir sorunu çözmede başarıya ulaştığı kaç tane örnek var diye soracak olursanız, bildiğim kadarıyla hiçbir örnek yok.
Temelde filozofların kullandıkları esas teknik, düşünce deneyidir ve burada sonsuz tartışmalar yürütebilirsiniz. Mesela John Searle'ün Çince odasını ele alalım. Bence burada da aynı dezavantajlar söz konusu. Bu düşünce deneyine göre, yalnızca sentaks işini görebilen bir sistemin semantik işini görmesi mümkün değildir. Bunu söylediğinde artık ileri doğru atılacak bir adım kalmıyor ve zaten herhangi bir şekilde kanıtlamış da olmuyorsun. Bunun tek istisnası iki örnektir ki o da normalde filozof olarak addedilmeyen, filozoflar gibi de düşünmeyen ama eşitlikler ve görsel imgeler üzerinden düşünen biri tarafından, yani Einstein tarafından gerçekleştirildi.

If a philosophical writer cannot be followed, the difficulty of his subject can be placed only in mitigation of his offense, not in condonation of it. There are too many expert witnesses on the other side.

Philosophers are never quite sure what they are talking about — about what the issues really are — and so often it takes them rather a long time to recognize that someone with a somewhat different approach (or destination, or starting point) is making a contribution.

If this is philosophy it is at any rate a philosophy that is not in its right mind.

One who intends to understand grasps even the slightest hint, but the one who has no intention to understand never comprehends, no matter how loudly you shout.

Philosophy is the attempt to formulate principles or categories which the philosopher already possesses, in common with everyone else, but in an unformulated state.

"Philosophy is "an unusually stubborn attempt to think clearly.

Filosofia se trădează pe sine atunci când degenerează în dogmatism, adică într-o ştiinţă fixată în formule, definitivă, completă. A face filozofie înseamnă a fi pe drum; în filozofie întrebările sunt mult mai importante decât răspunsurile, şi fiecare răspuns devine o nouă întrebare

The fool who does not know his own folly may be doing nothing, and the philosopher who is trying to darken knowledge may be doing worse than nothing; but every sincere attempt to grapple with real difficulties made by a man not utterly incompetent has its value.

Do you not think that there are things which you cannot understand, and yet which are; that some people see things that others cannot?

A philosopher of imposing stature doesn't think in a vacuum. Even his most abstract ideas are, to some extent, conditioned by what is or is not known in the time when he lives.