Sure. For example, what it means for a program to be correct. &quot;It&#x27;s not a bug, it&#x27;s a feature!&quot; is a joke, but also a playful illustration of a complicated topic. It&#x27;s worth thinking critically and clearly about these things, and will only become more relevant as formal verification &amp; specification enters our field. It&#x27;s especially useful when defining undefined behavior, or just implementing an imprecise spec. Analytic philosophy in general is summed up thus:<p>&quot;When we have realized the obstacles in the way of a straightforward and confident answer, we shall be well launched on the study of philosophy—for philosophy is merely the attempt to answer such ultimate questions, not carelessly and dogmatically, as we do in ordinary life and even in the sciences, but critically, after exploring all that makes such questions puzzling, and after realizing all the vagueness and confusion that underlie our ordinary ideas.&quot; - Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gutenberg.org&#x2F;files&#x2F;5827&#x2F;5827-h&#x2F;5827-h.htm" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gutenberg.org&#x2F;files&#x2F;5827&#x2F;5827-h&#x2F;5827-h.htm</a>)