Are cans constitutionally iffy? Whenever, that is, we say that we can do something, or could do something, or could have done something, is there an if in the offing--suppressed, it may be, but due nevertheless to appear when we set out our sentence in full or when we give an explanation of its meaning?

A sentence is made up of words, a statement is made in words.... Statements are made, words or sentences are used.

Infelicity is an ill to which all acts are heir which have the general character of ritual or ceremonial, all conventional acts.

There is no one kind of thing that we 'perceive' but many different kinds, the number being reducible if at all by scientific investigation and not by philosophy: pens are in many ways though not in all ways unlike rainbows, which are in many ways though not in all ways unlike after-images, which in turn are in many ways but not in all ways unlike pictures on the cinema-screen--and so on.

It should be quite clear, then, that there are no criteria to be laid down in general for distinguishing the real from the not real.

After all we speak of people 'taking refuge' in vagueness -the more precise you are, in general the more likely you are to be wrong, whereas you stand a good chance of not being wrong if you make it vague enough.

I feel ruefully sure, also, that one must be at least one sort of fool to rush in over ground so well trodden by the angels.