Leo Strauss Quotes

I am bound to furnish my antagonists with arguments, but not with comprehension.

Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education.

The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners.

There are two things which cannot be attacked in front: ignorance and narrow-mindedness. They can only be shaken by the simple development of the contrary qualities. They will not bear discussion.

By free-thinking I mean the use of the understanding in endeavoring to find out the meaning of any proposition whatsoever, in considering the nature of the evidence for or against it, and in judging of it according to the seeming force or weakness of the evidence.

Use your logick, and then your rhetorick. Rhetorick without logick, is like a tree with leaves and blossoms, but no root; yet I confess more are taken with rhetorick than logick, because they are catched with a free expression, when they understand not reason. Logick must be natural, or it is worth nothing at all: Your rhetorick figures may be learned.

The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom, but to set a limit to infinite error.

What I knew was I liked math and science, and I never wanted to memorize everything. I wanted to understand where it came from.

Always be willing to look at both sides of the argument. Understanding the other side is the best way to strengthen your own.

In what we really understand, we reason but little.

True scholarship consists in knowing not what things exist, but what they mean; it is not memory but judgment.

I'm just quizzical about how things work and why things are.

It's good to know how to read, but it's dangerous to know how to read and not how to interpret what you're reading.

Anyone who in discussion relies upon authority uses, not his understanding, but rather his memory.

Anything that gives us new knowledge gives us an opportunity to be more rational.

Convincing yourself doesn't win an argument.

Two half philosophers will probably never a whole metaphysician make.

The man of science is a poor philosopher.

The basic drive behind real philosophy is curiosity about the world, not interest in the writings of philosophers.

I do not have a brain that I long for in dealing with matters of which I am ignorant, that don't come within my ken and a rationale, a reason, and argument and so on, and I can't do that and I'm not in that bracket at all.

Where there is shouting, there is no true knowledge.

I don't see myself as a philosopher. That's awfully boring.

My background is basically scientific math. My Dad was a physicist, so I have it in my blood somewhere. Scientific method is very important to me. I think anything that contradicts it is probably not true.

Bad reasoning as well as good reasoning is possible; and this fact is the foundation of the practical side of logic.

But I don't think I have any particular talent for prediction, because when you have three or four elements in hand, you don't have to be a genius to reach certain conclusions.