273 definitions
The book's index
Zettel
160 concepts · 273 definitions
- ability1
- absolute pitch1
- actual infinity1
- agreement1
- allusion1
- appearance1
- arithmetic1
- attention2
- behavior1
- belief1
- bet1
- bewitchment1
- blindness2
- calculation1
- care1
- causation1
- cause1
- certainty3
- classification1
- color2
- concern1
- confession1
- consciousness3
- contradiction2
- conviction1
- criteria1
- defamiliarization1
- disposition1
- doubt2
- dream1
- dreaming1
- effort1
- emotion3
- enjoyment1
- essence1
- event1
- evidence1
- expectation4
- explanation4
- eye1
- EYES1
- fairy1
- familiarity1
- fantasy1
- fate1
- fear4
- feebleness1
- feeling1
- friendliness1
- gesture3
- glance1
- God1
- grammar1
- grief1
Thinking (n.) seems mysterious the way a flame does: because it is impalpable — and the impalpable mystifies only because we want to grab it.
Thinking (n.) teaches truth the way drawing a face teaches you to see it better.
Thinking (n.) pictured as happening in the head is among a philosopher's most dangerous ideas; the closed space lends it something occult.
Thinking (n.) is not denied of tables the way growth is; a table doesn't think is a different kind of sentence from a table doesn't grow.
Understanding (n.) supposedly must come before obeying an order — but that must is fishy: how long beforehand?
Understanding (n.) a tune is no process that accompanies the hearing; ask what goes on inside and the answers are insipid.
Understanding (n.) music is neither a sensation nor a sum of sensations, though it is fairly called an experience.
Understanding (n.) comes about through explanation, but also through training.
Meaning (n.) belongs to words only in the stream of thought and life.
Meaning (n.) moves, whereas a process stands still; what bothers us is the grammar of process, not its kind.
Meaning (n.) does not consist in anything; the mistake is to look for the act or process that meaning something is made of.
Meaning (n.) belongs to words only in the course of conversation, as it flows on in application and interpretation.
Intention (n.) can belong to no one: a government may have an intention that no single person has.
Intention (n.) is like sitting inside a film in a dark cinema; when the lights come up, its pictures are mere patches of light on a screen.
Intention (n.) is not to be found among the sensations: look in that drawer and you find it empty.
An Intention (n.) described is a portrait painted: what went on, seen from one point of view and for one purpose.
A Thought (n.) need have no correlate in the brain; order might proceed out of chaos, as a plant from a seed that contains nothing of it.
Thought (n.) cannot extend experience, any more than a telephone can transmit measles along with talk.
Thought (n.) is imagined as flying instead of walking, and so we project our lack of a synoptic view into a medium where marvels are possible.
A Thought (n.) is what is alive in a sentence, that without which it would be dead — but so too is whatever makes paper money more than printed slips.
Philosophy (n.) is always at risk of inventing a myth of symbolism or of mental processes, instead of simply saying what anyone knows.
Philosophy (n.) unties knots in our thinking; its result must be simple, but philosophizing is as complicated as the knots it unties.
Philosophy (n.) struggles not to find the solution but to recognise it in what looks like a mere preliminary; the difficulty is to stop.
Philosophy (n.) may not cut short a disease of thought; it must run its course, and slow cure is all — which is why mathematicians make bad philosophers.
A Rule (n.) cannot be explained in general; I can only teach you to use rules by training you.
A Rule (n.) seems the only guidance that cannot misfire, as if machinery could let in the unforeseen but a rule never could.
A Rule (n.) obeyed leaves no further court of appeal: the rule does it all by itself, and obeying is one thing.
A Rule (n.) can be obeyed perfectly by a move that spoils the game, and then I must say: I gave bad rules.
A Memory (n.) image (n.) is not evidence of the past like an old photograph; memory-image and memory-words stand on the same level.
Memory (n.) does not show us the past, any more than our senses show us the present.
Memory (n.) need leave no trace stored in the nerves; if that upsets our concepts of causality, it is high time they were upset.
Memory (n.) could not communicate the past even as a voice, for how would we learn from it what yesterday means?
Explanation (n.) always has its foundation in training — educators ought to remember this.
Explanation (n.) may be gratuitous: why does the tree still look upright when I tilt my head? Why not leave explaining alone?
Explanation (n.) that haunts the head makes you neglect the most important facts; you assume instead of simply describing.
Explanation (n.) only leads to another terminus; it cannot take you any further than you already are.
Pain (n.) might be split into two concepts by a tribe: one for wounds, met with pity, one for stomachache, met with mockery.
Pain (n.) seems to have a body with shape and colour, as if only the vocabulary were missing to describe it.
Pain (n.) is defined by its place in our life, its particular connections.
Pain (n.) is the link between sensation and emotion: localised like touch, yet expressive like joy.