James Bond — Aphorisms, films and short stories

Read something before watching a film

The most important idea conceived in Europe is the universal man. (The universal man is often religious.)

If you practice a religion, you will discover, as some anticipated it, a world-view; and, if you add to that world-view different knowledges (from philosophy, art and sciences) without contradicting it, you will discover a universal man –a religious universal man. (And, by changing your religion, you can become a different religious universal man.)

A beautiful country in which I did what I pleased is France.

When I was an Erasmus student, I satisfied all my needs either natural and necessary (such as drinking, eating and sleeping), or natural and unnecessary (such as sexuality), or unnatural and unnecessary (such as reading and writing)) without making pleasure my life’s purpose.

Drinking alcohol without eating gets you drunk quickly. (You know the wise by the way they drink alcohol, as Solomon said.)

If a young woman talks much, she gossips; and if she gossips, she betrays a confidence; and if she betrays a confidence, she is untrustworthy; that is Solomon.

The test for unfailing love is faithfulness, as Solomon said.

She was jealous: She did not want me to be happy next to another young woman.

The bank is a house of slavery.

In a country where people have arms and bombs, it is better not to live for a long time.

No country in this world was ever indestructible.

Written history is sometimes a lie, so you will not know the people who made history.

Rare events are often a surprise, even if repetition is the case. (To name a rare event, let us consider a pandemic. To name another, let us consider a world war.)

The number of infections in a pandemic, like the number of casualties in a world war, cannot exceed the world’s population; it is finite, as Nassim Tale has shown.

Those who say, “I wish you well!” rarely mean it.

Rephrasing Jesus, the son of Sirach, for philosophers: Insanity always breaks Aristotle’s law of non-contradiction.

The more you read philosophy books, the more you love philosophy.

The more you love philosophy, the more you read philosophy books.

Your reading of a book cannot be deeper than how deep your thinking is. Likewise, watching a film.

If an author thinks more deeply than you, you will not completely understand his writings.

For more than two decades, I lived with the same mystery, “What is philosophy?”.

For Jesus, the son of Sirach, philosophy is seeing another’s wisdom. (And practice it.)

For more than a decade, I lived with the same mystery, “How to solve the problem of induction?”. (From antiquity to modernity, intellectual life in Europe has in common, among other things, the problem of induction. What is its solution? To pass from the particular to the universal, justify your induction. (And different inductions have different justifications.))

For more than a decade I lived with the same mystery, “How to solve the liar’s paradox?”. (A liar who confesses that he is a liar does not contradict himself.)

If a liar does not lie all the time: To either trust or distrust what he says, you must put him to the test (what he says is either true or not).

I need friends more than philosophy.

When I was an ardent writer, I was not a voracious reader.

James Bond

The Book of Genesis

In The Book of Genesis, the oldest book about espionage, to be a spy, you must find out what makes a country vulnerable (by making observations inside it) and hide your identity (by lying).

In the same book, you may discover another trait of a spy: He is not afraid of being a stranger among strangers.

To avoid evil

For Solomon, evildoers will eat the fruits of their wrong ways.


Not once in James Bond films, James Bond is a spy who knows what makes his enemy fragile and lies about who he is. And he was not afraid of being a stranger among strangers, given the situation.

The best way to understand the collection of films in which Daniel Craig plays James Bond is to watch first Sam Mendes’ Spectre and then the rest of the films in the order they appeared; all the enemies are linked to the same criminal organization, SPECTRE –they are vulnerable to it.

In Martin Campbell’s Casino Royale, the more people work against a villain, the more likely he is to fail.

Those who made Quantum of Solace were tested by a crisis and overcame it.

As you see in Sam Mendes’ Skyfall, your enemy may be someone who worked for you.

In Sam Sam Mendes’ Skyfall, terrorism is a dark path and, its cost is death.

In Sam Mendes’ Spectre, to decide to make a unique spy agency, they voted and had no unanimity for it and, given that, for them, a lack of unanimity is a lack of a decision, no unique spy agency. (In Marc Forster’s World War Z, Jews will not make a decision unless there is an exception: They consider that false beliefs, if they are unanimous, can expose the people to danger. (But it is not the modern Jews who applied such a rule first; it was the ancient Jews who did, as Norman Manea said.))

In Cary Joji Fukunaga’s No time to die, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend, but also my enemy.

In No Time to Die, you may see Cary Joji Fukunaga’s contribution to Judaism: You may kill someone to whom you are an enemy by accident.

In Cary Joji Fukunaga’s No time to die, bioterrorism is a dark path, and its cost is death.

One more shot for James Bond

Based upon Ian Fleming’s James Bond.

Dark Chest of Wonders

What would you do if your enemies came to kill you? And how would you keep your conscience clear?

In Paris, France, M., the Head of MI6, is ambushed. As he was walking down a street, he thought he saw a former lover; when he approached her, some men jumped on him and made him enter a car with other men who pointed their guns at him. A successful ambush.

Those who ambushed M. hold him prisoner in a building. And they made him look like a different person –their leader.

M. did not betray his secret service and refused to join them.

M. recognized them by how they changed his appearance and the interrogatory: They were the criminal organization SPECTRE.

The MI6 noticed that M. was missing and began a search for him.

To make any intelligence officer, in this case, James Bond, kill M. instead of the leader of SPECTRE, SPECTRE wanted that intelligence officer to confuse the Head of MI6 with its leader, given that now the former could pass for the latter; SPECTRE would kill M. if the person they sent were not to kill him; another thing: SPECTRE expected the MI6 to fail to rescue M. (they would “rescue” the leader of SPECTRE instead; SPECTRE also made its leader look like M.; the leader of SPECTRE is in a different building) and think otherwise and inform the intelligence officer.

The MI6 found the two buildings with the help of the cameras on the streets, a satellite and some witnesses. They knew what happened to M., that those who ambushed him went in separate directions, and that they are SPECTRE (they recognized some of its assassins).

But James Bond recognized M. by the scar behind his right ear when he tried to kill “the leader of SPECTRE” from a different building and, instead of killing him, rescued him.

To rescue M., James Bond had to kill all who stood in his way.

“They are SPECTRE…,” said M. to James Bond.

“Yes,” said James Bond.

James Bond informed the MI6, but it was too late for the team they sent to rescue M..

The leader of SPECTRE murdered the team sent to rescue M. soon after the rescue was over and James Bond was informed; SPECTRE surveyed them.

Then, in a few days and outside the city of Paris, the MI6 did to SPECTRE what SPECTRE wanted to do to them (The MI6 ambushed the leader of SPECTRE in Paris (they found him, as they found M.) and took him outside the city and let SPECTRE know where they hold him prisoner) –the MI6 was a smaller group than SPECTRE; thus, in almost a day, the leader of SPECTRE and his assassins were killed.

M. killed the leader of SPECTRE when they came to rescue him. The dead leader of SPECTRE and the last leader of SPECTRE is the same person.

And thus, they were no longer vulnerable to SPECTRE.

Now M. and James Bond are at a party together in Paris.

To have a clear conscience, do to your enemies as they want to do to you.

Post Scriptum: M. also lives as a philosophy professor. He was in Paris because he solved the problem of induction. On the day before he was ambushed, he gave a lecture on it; and he stayed another day to give another talk.

How to solve the problem of induction

My most important contribution to philosophy

M.’s notes

Solving the problem of induction.

Are we justified to infer the universal from the particular? If all the swans we see are white, are we justified to believe that all swans are white? That is the problem of induction. (Many philosophers consider it. –As Nassim Taleb said, the problem of induction is not David Hume’s problem, but Sextus Empiricus’.)

How to solve it?

If a swan cannot be different than white and we know it and, given our question, all the swans that we see are white, then we are justified to infer the truth that all swans are white (induction) (And the truth is absolute.); otherwise, we are not justified –but if we assume that all swans are white and see a single black swan, we will falsify the assumption and also discover the truth that not all swans are white (For Nassim Taleb, we can discover the truth by falsification. –And the truth that we discover by falsification is absolute.); that is Popperian falsification; and once our assumption is falsified, it will always be falsified (induction by falsification). As we can see, they are either all the same or not, but no matter how they are, we can generalize without mistakes.

We can make two mistakes here: One is to believe that they are not all the same when they are all the same, and the other is to believe that they are all the same when they are not all the same. (Those who study errors may be familiar with them.)

As in this case, proceed in all the circumstances.

The problem of induction is solved.

Other cases from science.

Just as not all swans are white, given that black swans do exist (Nassim Taleb.), not all planets orbit the Sun in the same direction as the Sun’s rotation, given that retrograde planets do exist (As I discovered in a scientific paper.). Once you falsify it, it will always be falsified; induction by falsification.

As I am reading Richard Feynman, I discovered that once the law of conservation of parity is falsified, it will always be falsified (Beta decay.) (When beta decay falsified the law of conservation of parity, as Richard Feynman reminded us, it became evident that sir Karl Popper is right.); that is a solved problem of induction.

By reading Frank Wilczek, I discovered that to know why all photons are the same, we must consider their origin –it is the same; that is a solved problem of induction.

The universe is uniform on a large scale, as Hélène Courtois has shown; that is not an unsolved problem of induction.

And three cases from Judaism.

There is a justified induction in The Book of Genesis: As a man dies, all will, given that no one can eat the fruits of the tree of life anymore –the first man and woman sinned against God.

Another justified induction in The Tanach, that is, the Hebrew Bible: For the Ecclesiastes, as one thing is vanity, all things are vanities; what justifies his induction is this: He searched out by wisdom everything that exists under the sky.

If you believe that everyone is unjust, Job may falsify you –and once you falsify your belief, you will always falsify it.

How to solve the problem of induction is no longer a known unknown. A solution: You must know all the particulars and see if there is unity in diversity. Another solution: You must know if all the particulars cannot not have something in common. And another solution: Once falsified, always falsified –any given scientific theory; here, Popperian falsifiability solves the problem of induction. (Or any belief.) What you see are different solutions to different problems of induction in different domains (sometimes, the domain is not religious).

When you solve the problem of induction, you know why they are all the same. (As Sextus Empiricus inspired me, if you do not know why they are all the same, do not say that they are all alike.)

Post Scriptum: Solving the problem of induction is progress in reasoning rather than knowledge.

Addition: For many philosophers, such as David Hume, causality is an induction problem. If you solve the problem of induction, causality is known.

Either similar causes produce similar effects all the time or not. In either case, you can generalize. (The former: “There is no smoke without fire.” And the latter: Iatrogenic disease as absolute truth discovered by falsification.)

Final shot for James Bond

Based upon Ian Fleming’s James Bond.

The M. diary


The opposite of speaking the truth is not silence, but lying; usually, we do both in the same language.


When a liar whom you know to be a liar says that he is a liar, he tells the truth; and, so, you are reminded of the complete truth about him: He does not lie all the time; another thing: If you consider the liar’s paradox, you have its solution right in front of you.


Even a man who always lies all the time, if he says he is a liar, tells the truth and no longer lies all the time.


“All men are liars,” as David, the king of Israel, said. He did not lie when he said that; to lie and to lie all the time is not the same thing. And that is not only a solved liar’s paradox; but also a solved problem of induction. (The problem of induction and the liar’s paradox are, sometimes, one.)


Rephrasing it: To solve the liar’s paradox, listen to my words:

– I am a liar, I, the liar, said. Given that it is the truth, there is no contradiction: I do not lie all the time.


James Bond informs that the woman who worked for SPECTRE to ambush me in Paris is dead; she was killed outside Paris with one shot in the head. The man who killed her is Bond.


SPECTRE; the cost of its path is destruction.

See the cost of its path to avoid evil, like king Solomon.


“The Meno’s paradox.” You do not know it from a previous life if you know it.


“The Zeno’s paradox.” In a race, the quickest runner can overtake the slowest, even if the former must first reach the point from where the latter started –there is no infinite number of intervals.


“The paradox of the stone.” God cannot create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it, because He is omnipotent; any stone that He makes, He can also lift it.


“The Moore’s paradox.” I cannot not believe it if I know it.

To solve any paradox, you must reason correctly, given its theme.



Truths and Practical Truths

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store