A pupil and a teacher. The pupil will not let anything be explained to him, for he continually interrupts with doubts, for instance as to the existence of things, the meaning for words, etc. The teacher says "Stop interrupting me and do as I tell you. So far your doubts don't make sense at all."

You can't be reluctant to give up your lie and still tell the truth.

So in the end when one is doing philosophy one gets to the point where one would like just to emit an inarticulate sound.

A confession has to be part of your new life.

If you tried to doubt everything you would not get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty.

The truth can be spoken only by someone who is already at home in it; not by someone who still lives in untruthfulness, and does no more than reach out towards it from within untruthfulness.

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it.

A new word is like a fresh seed sown on the ground of the discussion.

The human body is the best picture of the human soul.

People nowadays think that scientists exist to instruct them, poets, musicians, etc. to give them pleasure. The idea that these have something to teach them - that does not occur to them.

Don't say: "They must have something in common, or they would not be called 'games'" but look and see whether there is anything common to all. For if you look at them, you won't see something that is common to all, but similarities, affinities, and a whole series of them at that.

But more correctly: The fact that I use the word "hand" and all the other words in my sentence without a second thought, indeed that I should stand before the abyss if I wanted so much as to try doubting their meanings - shows that absence of doubt belongs to the essence of the language-game, that the question "How do I know..." drags out the language-game, or else does away with it.

Worte sind Taten. Words are deeds.

"Everything is already there in...." How does it come about that [an] arrow points? Doesn't it seem to carry in it something besides itself? - "No, not the dead line on paper; only the psychical thing, the meaning, can do that." - That is both true and false. The arrow points only in the application that a living being makes of it.

If you use a trick in logic, whom can you be tricking other than yourself?

The child learns to believe a host of things. I.e. it learns to act according to these beliefs. Bit by bit there forms a system of what is believed, and in that system some things stand unshakeably fast and some are more or less liable to shift. What stands fast does so, not because it is intrinsically obvious or convincing; it is rather held fast by what lies around it.

A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that's unlocked and opens inwards; as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push it.

The aspects of things that are most important for us are hidden because of their simplicity and familiarity. (One is unable to notice something - because it is always before one's eyes.) The real foundations of his enquiry do not strike a man at all. Unless that fact has at some time struck him. - And this means: we fail to be struck by what, once seen, is most striking and most powerful.

Man has to awaken to wonder - and so perhaps do peoples. Science is a way of sending him to sleep again.

A man's thinking goes on within his consciousness in a seclusion in comparison with which any physical seclusion is an exhibition to public view.

Aim at being loved without being admired.

Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of our language.

Knowledge is in the end based on acknowledgement.

If you want to go down deep you do not need to travel far; indeed, you don't have to leave your most immediate and familiar surroundings.

My aim is: to teach you to pass from a piece of disguised nonsense to something that is patent nonsense.

Kierkegaard writes: If Christianity were so easy and cozy, why should God in his Scriptures have set Heaven and Earth in motion and threatened eternal punishments? - Question: But then in that case why is this Scriptures so unclear?

If the true is what is grounded, then the ground is not true, nor yet false.

A teacher who can show good, or indeed astounding results while he is teaching, is still not on that account a good teacher, for it may be that, while his pupils are under his immediate influence, he raises them to a level which is not natural to them, without developing their own capacities for work at this level, so that they immediately decline again once the teacher leaves the schoolroom.

The real discovery is the one which enables me to stop doing philosophy when I want to. The one that gives philosophy peace, so that it is no longer tormented by questions which bring itself into question.

If someone is merely ahead of his time, it will catch up to him one day.

If God had looked into our minds he would not have been able to see there whom we were speaking of.

Our greatest stupidities may be very wise.

Like everything metaphysical the harmony between thought and reality is to be found in the grammar of the language.

I believe it might interest a philosopher, one who can think himself, to read my notes. For even if I have hit the mark only rarely, he would recognize what targets I had been ceaselessly aiming at.

If people did not sometimes do silly things, nothing intelligent would ever get done.

But if you say: "How am I to know what he means, when I see nothing but the signs he gives?" then I say: "How is he to know what he means, when he has nothing but the signs either?"

I squander untold effort making an arrangement of my thoughts that may have no value whatever.

If someone asked us 'but is that true?' we might say "yes" to him; and if he demanded grounds we might say "I can't give you any grounds, but if you learn more you too will think the same."

A philosopher is a man who has to cure many intellectual diseases in himself before he can arrive at the notions of common sense.

To obey a rule, to make a report, to give an order, to play a game of chess, are customs.

Reading the Socratic dialogues one has the feeling: what a frightful waste of time! What's the point of these arguments that prove nothing and clarify nothing?

If a lion could talk, we could not understand him.

Nothing is so difficult as not deceiving oneself.

What we do is to bring words back from their metaphysical to their everyday use.

I am sitting with a philosopher in the garden; he says again and again "I know that that's a tree", pointing to a tree that is near us. Someone else arrives and hears this, and I tell them: "This fellow isn't insane. We are only doing philosophy."

Does man think because he has found that thinking pays? Does he bring his children up because he has found it pays?

Nothing is so difficult as not deceiving oneself.

Uttering a word is like striking a note on the keyboard of the imagination.

What I hold fast to is not one proposition but a nest of propositions.

Courage, not cleverness; not even inspiration, is the grain of mustard that grows up to be a great tree.