The Templars' mental confusion makes them indecipherable. That's why so many people venerate them. - Umberto Eco

امکان دارد انسان غیر مذهبی فکر کند شری که در خفا مرتکب می شود، نادیده می ماند. اما این را نیز به خاطر داشته باشید که اگر انسان غیر مذهبی فکر کند کسی از بالا مواظب او نیست، در عین حال درست به همین دلیل هم می داند کسی او را عفو نخواهد کرد....این شخص به مراتب بیش از دینداران امکان دارد بکوشد با اعتراف در حضور جمع خود را تطهیر کند. این شخص از دیگران طلب عفو خواهد کرد....و به همین دلیل پیشاپیش می داند باید دیگران را ببخشاید

When semiotics posits such concepts as 'sign', it does not act like a science; it acts like philosophy when it posits such abstractions as subject, good and evil, truth or revolution. Now, a philosophy is not a science, because its assertions cannot be empirically tested … Philosophical entities exist only insofar as they have been philosophically posited. Outside their philosophical framework, the empirical data that a philosophy organizes lose every possible unity and cohesion. To walk, to make love, to sleep, to refrain from doing something, to give food to someone else, to eat roast beef on Friday — each is either a physical event or the absence of a physical event, or a relation between two or more physical events. However, each becomes an instance of good, bad, or neutral behavior within a given philosophical framework. Outside such a framework, to eat roast beef is radically different from making love, and making love is always the same sort of activity independent of the legal status of the partners. From a given philosophical point of view, both to eat roast beef on Friday and to make love to x can become instances of 'sin', whereas both to give food to someone and to make love to у can become instances of virtuous action. Good or bad are theoretical stipulations according to which, by a philosophical decision, many scattered instances of the most different facts or acts become the same thing. It is interesting to remark that also the notions of 'object', 'phenomenon', or 'natural kind', as used by the natural sciences, share the same philosophical nature. This is certainly not the case of specific semiotics or of a human science such as cultural anthropology.

"Not bad, not bad at all," Diotallevi said. "To arrive at the truth through the painstaking reconstruction of a false text."