Retrieving Aphoristic Philosophy

Journaling Like Gandalf the Gray

A few years ago, the idea of “retrieval” was all the rage in theology. Retrieving classical doctrines, retrieving forgotten modes of doing theology, retrieving older conceptions of particular denominations, etc. It was a pretty cool movement—especially cool was the sub-movement of analytic theologians who were doing it. One of my favorite retrieval projects was Ross Inman’s retrieval of the doctrine of God’s ‘immensity’. God is immense, He fills all his creation, and because He is immense, He is able to be present to all of His creatures, hence God is also omni-present. You can read Inman’s work on it here: https://philpapers.org/archive/INMRDI.pdf

I don’t know if retrieval is still as big in theology anymore, I haven’t been paying as much attention as I used to, but I like the sentiment and I’ve been doing a bit of my own retrieval lately, but instead of classical doctrines of God, I’ve been retrieving lost forms of doing philosophy. I’ve done videos on my ParkNotes YouTube channel covering the philosophical soliloquy invented by Augustine and perhaps perfected by Boethius; many videos on different forms of keeping commonplace books; a video covering the philosophical dialogue inaugurated by Plato, running through Hume, and probably perfected by Dostoyevsky; and most recently, I made a video on aphoristic philosophy. Watch that video here:

Of all the lost ways of doing philosophy, the aphorism is perhaps the mode most worthy of retrieval by philosophers. We’d expect ‘lovers of wisdom’ to have an aphorism on their tongues ready for particular occasions—but it seems to me that the wisdom tradition and the ‘philosophical’ tradition has come apart and we let the wisdom-lovers off the hook.

Today, if you want to find a word of wisdom, you don’t look to academic philosophers but to fantasy authors—and not even the authors themselves, but their imaginary characters. This is kind of a bummer. But we can still turn the tide, let’s retrieve aphoristic philosophy!

Philosopher or not, you can keep your own journal of aphorisms.

Now, I don’t mean a commonplace book of your favorite aphorisms that you’ve collected from others—that’s a great practice, I do it myself. Here’s a video on that:

But what I mean instead is that you should keep a notebook where you generate your own aphorisms.

Well, first thing’s first, what on earth is an ‘aphorism’ and how is it different from other wise sayings?

R.J. Hollingdale, translator of Georg Christoph Lichtenberg’s The Waste Books, a fabulous collection of aphoristic philosophy, notes that the word ‘aphorism’, like most things good and bad, goes all the way back to ancient Greece, specifically to the father of medicine, Hypocrites. But Hollingdale claims that what started in ancient Greece, didn’t rise to its full glory as a unique literary form until the Renaissance with thinkers like Erasmus, Michelangelo, Paracelsus, Montaigne, and Chamfort.

Hollingdale gives us four qualities of a pure and perfect aphorism, in the style of the thinkers mentioned above as well as Lichtenberg:

An Aphorism is:

1. Brief

2. Isolated

3. Witty

4. Philosophical[1]

He goes on to explain that the fact that aphorisms are philosophical sets them apart from epigrams, which Google say is “a pithy saying or remark expressing an idea in a clever and amusing way.” So aphorisms are witty like epigrams but the fact that they’re philosophical sets them apart and ties them to the proverb or maxim, which Google says is “a short pithy saying in general use, stating a general truth or piece of advice.” But proverbs are meant to be obvious, blunt, more immediately interpreted and affirm than the aphorism, the point of which is also serious but which includes humor and hits more like the punchline of a joke. They’re meant to be brief but often they’re longer than a proverb and they resist explanation, you either get them or you don’t, but explaining them is as bad as explaining a joke. Let those who have ears hear.

Aphorisms are isolated, meaning they stand alone, i.e., they don’t need to find their place in a broader context, a full philosophical picture of the world, for their philosophical thrust to hit its mark. In fact, Hollingdale argues that it’s this isolated nature of the aphorism which led to its demise as a literary form. At the time Georg Lichtenberg was filling his waste books full of really fantastic aphorisms, his contemporary philosophers where constructing massive philosophical systems, complete pictures of the world, and if you weren’t involved in system building, then you weren’t a serious philosopher. The creation of brief, witty, isolated sayings—philosophical though they may be—wasn’t held in high regard.

I’m not sure if that’s the sole reason for the downfall of the aphorism or not, but whatever the case, I think it’s time to bring them back. I’ve started my own journal of aphorisms, and yes, it’s probably a little pretentious but screw it. I’ll own the cringe if it means the next Lichtenberg or Pascal can come after me and give us some fresh aphorisms.

If you need some help getting clear on what an aphorism looks like, then watch my ParkNotes video on them! I quote from Lichtenberg, Pascal, La Rochefoucauld, E.M. Cioran, and Gandalf Greyhame! I also share some of my own at the end of the video. Really, watch the video:

You can grab the books from the video below from my affiliate links to support my work:

- Georg Lichtenberg The Waste Books

- Blaise Pascal Pensées

- La Rochefoucauld Collected Maxims

- E.M. Cioran, The Trouble with Being Born

- The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings set

---

[1] R.J. Hollingdale, introduction to The Waste Books by Georg Christoph Licthenberg, (NY: New York Review Books, 1990), x.