I think that when I first suggested the idea that knowledge should be viewed as a natural kind, many people thought this was just crazy.

But there is no doubt that my own views on this are, in quite a number of ways, very different from those of Quine.

The kinds of claims I make about knowledge are thus meant to be illustrative of a general argumentative strategy which might well bear fruit in areas of philosophy which I have not thus far explored.

I was often asked how one could even make sense of this. Isn't the category of knowledge something that we project upon the world, rather than something that we discover in it?

In my view, since the case can be made that knowledge too is a natural kind, the role of pretheoretical intuitions is similarly diminished in epistemology.

My own reasons for favouring talk of natural kinds is just that I believe the best accounts of the success of scientific theories presupposes the existence of natural kinds.

I do realise that talk of natural kinds dates back to Aristotle, but I'd better not say too much about ancient philosophers lest I be convicted of practicing history of philosophy without a license.

There is a worry that many have expressed that, on the naturalistic way of approaching philosophical questions, philosophy will somehow be co-opted by science. I'm not much worried about this.

What I hankered for was an account of knowledge which would do far more than get our intuitions about cases right; I wanted a kind of account which would somehow be explanatory.

Here, there is simply no substitute for the kind of work that experimental psychologists do, work which shows some mechanisms to be quite reliable, and others to be quite unreliable.

When reflection is thereby demystified, I believe that the temptation to view human knowledge as different in kind from animal knowledge is undermined.

The secret of happiness is freedom but to be totally free you need to earn: courage, persistence and boldness.

But if the Dream Kings were mine, what would I have to dream about? If I possessed the impossible landscapes, what would remain of the impossible?

What's the possibility of the ability of doing nothing?

Prosperity provideth but adversity proveth friends.

The spectrum that most people exist in this world is very mundane and very unhappy. Certainly human beings are capable of experiencing great joy and happiness.

To be a successful state, we must nurture successful children.

To love God as He ought to be loved, we must be detached from all temporal love. We must love nothing but Him, or if we love anything else, we must love it only for His sake.

Children at certain ages have distinct actions, and boys at certain ages have a particular way of acting too.

We aim to achieve general progress in relations between North Korea and Japan.

The end justifies the means. But what if there never is an end? All we have is means.