Talk:Aphorism
Page contents not supported in other languages.
Literature Low‑importance | |||||||
|
Linguistics: Theoretical Linguistics Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
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.
Does this really belong here, or should it be moved to Wiktionary?--Boffy b 11:16, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)
Well, then, you better get goin', then huh? GOOD LUCK, ye wiki-worker!--OleMurder 19:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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?
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?)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The quote that is widely attributed to Twain was not, in fact, said by him. Danis1911 15:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 21:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So that we might learn who that might be, please do write that, if you can.
Thank You,
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 21:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are directions/advice like "Love the sinner and hate the sin" really aphorisms? --Irrevenant [ talk ] 10:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
I think the examples section badly needs references. --Taraborn (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
7.1.1 Proverbs and sayingsIn 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)[reply]
Just tossing this out there: would René Descartes' statement, "Cogito ergo sum," be considered aphoristic? --Enigmatick 03:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Who needs aphorisms created only by some unknown writer?
A very anonymous website. Hence dubious reliability.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Aren't those all the same thing? Shouldn't we just pick one?