Talk:Aphorism

This Is Not an Ad for Andrew Hui
Approximately 20% of the article is made up of thoughts attributed to Andrew Hui. I'm sure he's quite the gentleman, but giving so much space to the thoughts of just one, contemporary scholar hurts credibility.

Wikipeda is not a Dictionary
Does this really belong here, or should it be moved to Wiktionary?--Boffy b 11:16, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)


 * I think it is pretty encyclopedic, and that articles like this are a major strength of Wikipedia. It does need a little work, especially linking to similar articles, which I will start now.--Spalding 16:11, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Well, then, you better get goin', then huh? GOOD LUCK, ye wiki-worker!--OleMurder 19:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Can we please have a translation into English of the "excellent advice" contained in the dedication of the school of Salerno's collection of aphorisms?
 * Here's my quick translation of the Latin (I made this translation, so feel free to use it):
 * The whole school of Salerna writes to the king of the English.
 * If you wish for that unharmed thing, if you wish yourself to restore the sensible,
 * Lift these heavy concerns: trust the impious to get angry:
 * Forbear wine: dine less; let it not be vain for you
 * To rise after the courses: shun midday sleep:
 * Do not hold back your urine, nor strongly hold in your anus:
 * If you guard this good words, you will live for a long time.
 * Although this quote is stock full of aphorisms, I feel that there are other examples that could be used - examples in English. I am just a novice here, so I won't be making any changes.--Ernieefiii 05:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Cat...

The section on Aphorisms in Law, I don't understand. (By the way: up until now I'd had no idea that Leonid Sukhurov was such an important aphorist that he should be cited every other line. Did we get a Sukhurov fan in here?)


 * It's spam, and has been deleted. The idea, of course, is that only the very most famous people are included here - rather than people being included here in the hopes of becoming famous as a result. - DavidWBrooks 16:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * He occasionally returns, by the way. If you see him, delete him - unless he should become hugely famous and worth of inclusion, of course. - DavidWBrooks 00:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the first 2 paragraphs because they try to define the word and give its etymology. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It should be written on the assumption that people don't read an article on subject X unless they have a curiosity about X which means they already have at least a basic idea of what the term "X" means. If they don't, they need to consult a dictionary, not wikipedia. 76.22.59.16 (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is your personal opinion, hardly shared by other editors.Galassi (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not an opinion. It is a rule: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.59.16 (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Aphorism is not a word. It is a literary genre. Don't waste our time.Galassi (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Nietzsche's Aphorism
Though I agree that the new aphorism is better known, it isn't presented by Nietzsche as an aphorism, it being a phrase from his book, Also sprach zarathustra. The previous came from his "Wanderer und sein Schatten", which is a large collection of aphorisms, and perhaps more suitable for selection. - HomoUniversalis


 * I removed it because of the key word  tersely in the introductory paragraph, which it doesn't have. (32 words, two colons, a dash and internal quote marks!  I've read pithier newspaper articles.)  It's not not an aphorism - it's a philosophical statement.
 * The test of an aphorism is that a stranger can remember it almost word-perfect after one reading ("one man's meat is another man's poison") ... I defy anybody to quote this Nietzsche ramble without a chunk of practice. In fact, I had to read it a couple of times just to figure out what it meant.
 * If we want Nietzsche, "That which does not kill us makes us stronger" fits the bill in terms of conciseness and popularity. But I won't remove it again without agreement. It's obviously a judgement call. - DavidWBrooks 14:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Although I agree with the first definition, there can be debate on what is and what is not superfluous. I challenge anyone to pour the principle in that aphorism into a more concise sentence. Additionally, the description, here on wikipedia, of "Human, all too human", where the aphorism originates from rightly states that it is a collection of aphorisms. Regardless, if someone wants to change it into a "That which does not kill us makes us stronger", or another short aphorism, that's okay with me. HomoUniversalis 12:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nietzsche is known, among other things, as something of a "definitive" Aphorist. I think this quote should be kept, if for no other reason, for the sake of including him in this article. Danis1911 15:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Secondhand Aphorisms
As usual with Wikipedia, I am impressed with this article and with the scholarly discussion emerging from it.

I propose a link to my website www.benandverse.com. It is a website with perhaps a difference, though hardly a distinction.

All my aphorisms are emphatically secondhand.

Google’s Directory describes them with extraordinary politeness:

John McCall's distillation of sayings from Benjamin Franklin's "Poor Richard's Almanac."

The website provides tables with a side-by-side comparison of Franklin’s magnificent prose with my latter day jingles. In fairness, my rhyming sound bites are mainly designed to persuade people to consider Franklin’s wisdom. (In any event, my “translation” was considered accurate enough to warrant a link from the Franklin Institute.)

There is also a new section (www.benandverse.com/writings/index.htm) on my website, “Phony Pearls of Fictitious Wisdom,” which offers more secondhand aphorisms. These are based on the I Ching. However, in this case, I don’t provide the rather lengthy originals for comparison on the website. For that reason, I doubt that they are distinctive enough to warrant a link. Most aphorisms are, after all, in some sense, derived.

It is a side-by-side comparison that is rare.

I’d consider it an honor to receive a link from the Wikipedia.

Wikipedia rightly desires to confirm the permanence of any link. The original website has persisted for years; I have instructed my executors that both the original website and this new addition shall remain unchanged until long after my death.

Sincerely,

John McCall [e-mail removed] 152.163.100.13 20:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Franklin's Sayings Arranged by Subject
In the section above, I recommended my website because I thought that the craft of creating aphorisms might be made more apparent by comparing one set of sayings with another. However, since one aphorist has no reputation, the comparison would seem to be of very limitted interest.

However, there is one remaining reason to propose a link. The website contains a very large number of sayings from Franklin (an aphorist of world-historical stature) arranged by subject with copious cross-references.

Please forgive me for my presumption in the article above.

John McCall

152.163.100.13 22:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No offense, but my opinion would be that Web sites containing aphorisms are so prevalent on the Web that we shouldn't link to any - they're easy to find. This isn't an aphorism collection, but an explanation. - DavidWBrooks 22:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

factitious/fictional
John "Hannibal" Smith is a fictional character... its not as if he's a collector of fictitious aphorisms (there /is/ a difference) so he should be labelled fictional.

&c. "An aphorism is...tasty...very, very tasty..." Aaron Aardvark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.8.152 (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Zaphod?
Although not possessed of an eidetic memory, I can't remembe Zaphod Beeblevrox saying "right now I need aphorisms like I need holes in the head". Is this correct as a quotation and if so from where? Rob Burbidge 21:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "&hellip; `Life is wasted on the living.'"


 * "Yeah," said Zaphod bitterly, "very good. Very deep. Right now I need aphorisms like I need holes in my heads."
 * From The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, about 10% in.&mdash;Dah31 (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Who is this guy?
I don't recognise this Oleg Vishnepolsky fellow...who is this guy? Is he famous yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.100.122 (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Oleg Vishnepolsky was one of the early technologists and researchers at IBM’s T.J. Watson Research Center in the 1980s, and was thus present at the creation of some of the critical advances that made the Internet possible. Some of his sayings come out of his corporate experience: “Good project management is building a novel out of a bunch of short stories.”" &mdash;Dah31 (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Aphorism missing the point
Aphorisms are inherently neoclassical, and are representitive of its tenets. By definition, an aphorism needs balance (and a fulcrum point) and parallelism. It isn't just something that one doesn't forget.

See Benjamin Franklin's writing for a more depthy explanation.

--72.224.11.29 17:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The definition of aphorism is disputed as "expressing a general truth in a pithy sentence." Considering the examples, it seems that aphorism should be defined as: "a personal opinion written in such a way as to give it an appearance of truth." Clearly, "Greed is a permanent slavery" or "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic", etc. are expressions of personal opinion and not neccessarily 'true'.

I’d like to question the wisdom of having “links” to the example of an aphorism of François, Duc de La Rochefoucauld, as it diminishes the relevance of this particular aphorism by focusing one's attention on this minor example of spurious over-eager editing… This query I hold up for discusssion here, as I do not wish to tread on anybody’s ego by changing it (and, it is not that important an issue anyway). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.18.136 (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Mark Twain quote
The quote that is widely attributed to Twain was not, in fact, said by him. Danis1911 15:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Unlikely to pass from memory?
This claim is kind of random and probably doesn't belong in the article -- it's not part of the definition cited (or any other I see offhand). I removed it, but the removal was reverted, and I note from the edit history that another person already tried removing it and was also reverted. It should at least be cited, so I gave it a citation needed tag, but really I think someone should go ahead and remove it.

signature
&#91;&#91; hopiakuta Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message. %7e%7e  Thank You. -]] 21:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Leonid Sukhorukov
So that we might learn who that might be, please do write that, if you can.

Thank You,

&#91;&#91; hopiakuta Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message. %7e%7e  Thank You. -]] 21:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Are directions really aphorisms?
Are directions/advice like "Love the sinner and hate the sin" really aphorisms? --Irrevenant [ talk ] 10:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this is an adequate definition of an aphorism: An aphorism is a cabbage, but a thinking cabbage.

talk ] 17 Oct 2013 16.48 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.12.199 (talk)

Essays, Essays
I'm really going to have to use this page a lot! My college-grade sister and I had a bet that I wouldn't be able to finish one of her writing assignments, a 1,055 word essay about Nietzche (hope I'm spelling it properly), and his aphorisms. So, I hope I can do well! --Princess Janay (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"Anyone who shirks their homework onto others can't complain when they get a C because they used Wikipedia as a source." - Anonymous 184.7.175.199 (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Aristotle
Hey, what happened to my Aristotle quote?! 'Man is by nature...'. It's famous!

Or does that not count? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizen89 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Aphorism and society
7.1.1 Proverbs and sayings In many East and Southeast Asian languages, proverbs, traditional sayings, and traditional verses play an incomparably more important role in effective communication than they do in English. P. 209 [226 of 332 in PDF], The Languages of East and Southeast Asia: An Introduction, Goddard, Cliff, Oxford University Press, USA ISBN: 0199273111. free download - 6.8 MB Pawyilee (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Descartes?
Just tossing this out there: would René Descartes' statement, "Cogito ergo sum," be considered aphoristic? --Enigmatick 03:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Tirukkural
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirukkural is filled with aphorisms .. Infact the whole thing is a collection of aphorisms (only). I think it should be included in this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.73.238.161 (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Reverting contributions
When reverting one's contributions, a better explanation should be provided than "I don't think these are aphorisms." The editor's discretion doesn't count for a Wikipedia policy, with all due respect. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are mistaking PEARLS from aphorisms. They may sound similar, but the latter require literary value. Musicians' one-liners are usually pearls, not aphorisms.Galassi (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

is alpha in aphorism a negation?
In some terms borrowed from greek, the initial alpha represents negation, such as theism-atheism. Is this the case for aphorism? Tkuvho (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed content
There were two uncited lists in the article, both were subjective lists based on no reliable independent sources, either to support inclusion or to support the idea that these are widely considered significant examples. There is no problem including lists where there is creible evidence that all the elements included are generally considered representative examples by reliable independent sources, but these had no indication to that effect. Applicable policies include WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 16:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced some external links.
Who needs aphorisms created only by some unknown writer?
 * Modern popular aphorisms - deleted.

A very anonymous website. Hence dubious reliability.
 * Aphorism Explained  - deleted.

I've added an excellent website - non-anonymous, and already recognized by our Wikipedia. Use Google to check: "www.phrases.org.uk" site:https://en.wikipedia.org/ 85.193.240.37 (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Plagiarism
The Introduction text is word for word that in the book "Random Thoughts" by SR Gladdish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.174.46 (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

concise vs terse vs laconic
Aren't those all the same thing? Shouldn't we just pick one?