把无知视为对自由的限制，理由在于它使人做出若看清后果便不会做出的选择。
我不信上帝——就神学家使其概念可理解的程度而言，他们并未提供任何理由让我们认为有东西与之对应。
倘若有人能指出你错了，你为何还要介意？
要预测明日天气，我无须考虑满洲国皇帝的心境。
要求对并非直接被给予的对象提供先天证明，是徒劳的。
没有任何对象的存在是不容置疑的。
我们从审美与道德体验中合法得出的唯一信息，是关于我们自身身心构造的信息。
假设体系的功能在于预先警示我们将有何种体验——使我们能够做出准确预测。
概率既由我们观察的性质决定，也由我们的理性观念决定。
The principles of logic and mathematics are true universally simply because we never allow them to be anything else.
The traditional disputes of philosophers are， for the most part， as unwarranted as they are unfruitful.
It is time to abandon the superstition that natural science cannot be logically respectable until philosophers solve the problem of induction.
No moral system can rest solely on authority.
I saw a Divine Being. I’m afraid I’m going to have to revise all my various books and opinions.
The ground for taking ignorance to be restrictive of freedom is that it causes people to make choices they would not have made had they seen what their choices involved.
I do not believe in God… to the extent that theists have made their concept intelligible， they have given us no reason to think anything answers to it.
Why should you mind being wrong if someone can show you that you are？
To predict tomorrow’s weather， I need not take into account the state of mind of the Emperor of Manchukuo.
It is futile to demand an a priori proof of the existence of objects which are not immediately ‘given’.
There are no objects whose existence is indubitable.
The distinction between mind and matter applies only to logical constructions out of sense-contents.
The only information we can legitimately derive from aesthetic and moral experiences is information about our own mental and physical make-up.
The function of a system of hypotheses is to warn us beforehand what will be our experience—to enable us to make accurate predictions.
Probability is determined both by the nature of our observations and by our conception of rationality.