Music Banter - View Single Post

Crowe · 01-06-2008, 01:08 PM

So it wasn't really a riddle at all then (I mean it is, sort of, but it's meaning is not concrete at all, but merely a path to a rhetorical question with no conclusive answer). And it most certainly wasn't simple. So instead of trying to figure out what is true, and what sort of philosophical school of thought you should tackle this piece with... you can really boil it down to: this whole piece was a lie to begin with.

Secondly, I am not sure these are aphorisms. They aren't true aphorisms anyway. I was trying to think of an example of an aphorism, but I just woke up -- so let's look at some examples I pulled up:
"Science is organized knowledge"
"Lost time is never found again"
An aphorism by definition is a saying that expresses a general truth or an astute observation. Going back and looking at the first half of your piece...

The hand it shakes when ready
To write old words anew

What exactly is a truth that one could glean from this couplet? There is no general truth in this line. It's not quite an aphorism then is it? Then:

If my hand is always steady
Then are any of my thoughts untrue?

There is no observation, or general truth here. Whether the question is rhetorical or not -- it loses any chance of being an aphorism due to the fact that it is purely based on rhetorical, fantastical, situational, biological reaction.

Without the existence of an aphorism, it hardly becomes a paradox at all. You put forth the implied fact that a hand shaking is the hand of a liar. Then you instituted the fact that your hand never shakes, making you forever honest by the standards you put forth. The answer to the question of this "riddle" is - no, your thoughts are never untrue. If we go by the rules governing the piece.

Summary: The piece DOES have an answer. It is NOT a simple riddle. It is a riddle, whether you wanted it to be or not. The piece is, itself, a lie, without regard to it's content but to its intent.

I could go on... I'm pretty well versed in philosophy (the continued talk about paradoxical connotations between aphorisms is almost wholly incorrect, but I'm too tired to blab on about that)

01-06-2008, 01:08 PM	#5 (permalink)
Crowe Music Addict Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 699	So it wasn't really a riddle at all then (I mean it is, sort of, but it's meaning is not concrete at all, but merely a path to a rhetorical question with no conclusive answer). And it most certainly wasn't simple. So instead of trying to figure out what is true, and what sort of philosophical school of thought you should tackle this piece with... you can really boil it down to: this whole piece was a lie to begin with. Secondly, I am not sure these are aphorisms. They aren't true aphorisms anyway. I was trying to think of an example of an aphorism, but I just woke up -- so let's look at some examples I pulled up: "Science is organized knowledge" "Lost time is never found again" An aphorism by definition is a saying that expresses a general truth or an astute observation. Going back and looking at the first half of your piece... The hand it shakes when ready To write old words anew What exactly is a truth that one could glean from this couplet? There is no general truth in this line. It's not quite an aphorism then is it? Then: If my hand is always steady Then are any of my thoughts untrue? There is no observation, or general truth here. Whether the question is rhetorical or not -- it loses any chance of being an aphorism due to the fact that it is purely based on rhetorical, fantastical, situational, biological reaction. Without the existence of an aphorism, it hardly becomes a paradox at all. You put forth the implied fact that a hand shaking is the hand of a liar. Then you instituted the fact that your hand never shakes, making you forever honest by the standards you put forth. The answer to the question of this "riddle" is - no, your thoughts are never untrue. If we go by the rules governing the piece. Summary: The piece DOES have an answer. It is NOT a simple riddle. It is a riddle, whether you wanted it to be or not. The piece is, itself, a lie, without regard to it's content but to its intent. I could go on... I'm pretty well versed in philosophy (the continued talk about paradoxical connotations between aphorisms is almost wholly incorrect, but I'm too tired to blab on about that) __________________ Last edited by Crowe; 01-06-2008 at 01:15 PM.