December 15, 2009
why aphorisms are cynical
A good single sentence saying can’t require background evidencing or further explanation. It must be instantly recognizable as true. It also needs to be news to the listener. Most single sentences that people can immediately verify as true they already believe. What’s left? One big answer is things that people don’t believe or think about much for lack of wanting to, despite evidence. Drawing attention to these is called cynicism.
(via marginal revolution)
comments
Leave a Reply
perfection is the enemy of the good.
Yes, but doesn’t it seem that aphorisms appeal to classical modes of thought as well? They present the sense that large realms of experience may be contained somehow, in such a way that we are given access to a kind of order we are often too close to to see. I wouldn’t say that this urge is cynical, although the aspect of it that is results when aphorisms are seen as supplanting the need for the actual experience that generates them (e.g. bumper stickers). It also strikes me as a mistake to think of the delight of recognition as being merely told of what we already know. Even within our own minds we never know things always in the same way, and this delight of recognition is often a kind of reminder of ourselves–of our manifold efforts to gather some lasting sense of the world.
I wouldn’t say there’s something intrinsically wrong with aphorisms. A great number of poets, philosophers and artists have produced all sorts of inspired sayings over the years. It’s just the way people use them on facebook, myspace etc. that may be called cynical, when these people try to mask their ignorance by quoting someone famous – usually a pseudo-philosopher in the vein of Coelho.