People often say that aesthetics is a branch of psychology. The idea is that once we are more advanced-all the mysteries of art-will be understood by psychological experiments. Exceedingly stupid at this idea is, this is roughly it.

The aspects of a thing that are most important to us are hidden to us because of their simplicity and familiarity.

Suppose we think while we talk or write--I mean, as we normally do--we shall not in general say that we think quicker than we talk, but the thought seems not to be separate from the expression.

If there were a verb meaning "to believe falsely," it would not have any significant first person, present indicative.

When we can't think for ourselves, we can always quote

Is it even always an advantage to replace an indistinct picture by a sharp one? Isn't the indistinct one often what we need?

Always get rid of theory private object in this way: assume that it constantly changes, but that you do not notice the change because your memory constantly deceives you.