I coined the title of this blog by scrunching together aphorism + attempt. What follows are some of my meager attempts at such. Why are they aphorattempts and not just aphorisms? By definition an aphorism must be quoted by others. So, if you like one of them, please say it in public and then let me know. I wouldn’t mind having a few under my belt.
Here they are:
- If a boring activity is challenging enough the ennui disappears.
- Nobody is born with will power and nobody is given any.
- Will power isn’t a city that you visit occasionally – it is a mountain that you must daily climb.
- Will power comes in drops, but it leaves in buckets.
- Perfection can only exist in the imagination but never clearly defined.
- Many plastics are not at all plastic while many non-plastics are.
- The road to happiness is much less bumpy if expectations are lowered.
- The extent to which any so-called scientist blindly adheres to doctrine, is the extent which he or she is not a scientist but a theologian.
- I think the perception of a person’s saintliness increases with distance and time. Rather than finding them saintly I suspect that many of those who had close personal contact with saints found them to be royal pains in the ass.
- The reality equation: B – E = D (Belief minus evidence equals delusion)
- Money is not the root of all evil. The root and the cause of all evil is human action minus conscience.
worldtake 
not bad, but I have a few comments:
number 2 is too long to be an aphorism…. in fact, it looks like it may be a combination of 2 or 3… I mean, who’s gonna memorize and quote that monstrosity!!??
is the 4th one supposed to be a separate, stand-alone aphorism? it seems out of context
#6… the phrase ” I think” either belongs at the beginning or enclosed in commas….
From my perspective, almost all these are debatable (especially the last 2) but I’m not going to start that conversation here…
All aphorisms are debatable, but you are right about number two not qualifying. I will remove that. And it was really no surprise that from your perspective you don’t agree with especially the last two, but feel free to argue your points on this — that is what this is all about. And I agree that “I think”needs to be at the beginning of the sentence.
Ok, I made some changes, but I would like to hear why you don’t agree with the one about money not being the route of all evil.
well, the reason I didn’t go into it is that my point of contention isn’t to do with the money part but rather with your definition of conscience. I’m very familiar with your thoughts on this and I feel that our differences are irreconcilable. For more information about this subject I refer you the wiki article on it @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience …. especially this quote: “The extent to which conscience informs moral judgment before an action and whether such moral judgments are, or should be, based wholly in reason has occasioned debate through much of the history of Western philosophy.”
Briefly, from my perspective, evil is very subjective and not clearly defined…. therefore, the very act is open to interpretation, as is the definition and apparent affect of conscience on that action. Too many variables for my taste…. in my mind, an aphorism takes one subjective “ideal” and defines it using qualities that are widely accepted and fairly well defined.
Of course Frank,
I read through the whole wikileaks thing and a variety of viewpoints are expressed there, including mine.
The idea of black and white concept of evil is an aspect of fundamental religion and obvious neither you nor I fall in that category. But evil or bad or inappropriate behavior can be defined within the context of any given culture and always is — within our cultures, we may not all agree on which behavior is more or less inappropriate, but some behaviors will almost universally be deplored. And it is our conscience that tells us not to do these things — that is the guard that helps us make decisions that are not opposed to the rules of our own moral and ethical context.
Through studying people who have lost functioning in a particular portion of the frontal lobes, it was found that these individuals do not make decisions based on the social rules within their particular context — the studies where performed in a wide variety of cultures all over the world. When this condition was caused by trauma or disease — that is to say that person previous to the injury or disease had a normally functioning frontal lobe, after losing functioning in this area they no longer had any clue to social rules and hag no concept of altruism. From this I conclude that without the conscience we just would be unable to make moral and ethical decisions — would not be human. In fact, at least all mammals and birds show adherence to social rules, so I state that without our conscience not only are we sub-human, but maybe reptilian. I still say that if a person acts based on his or her conscience — within his or her moral and ethical context, that person will not make evil choices. Yes, I know that those outside his context might view this persons choices as evil, but so what.
I stand by my aphorattempt
This is where we diverge… you seem to think that conscience is the “go to” place for making a decision on what action to take. I say there is “higher authority” for making life choices and it is innately available to everyone, any time. You say that conscience is in some specific part of the brain and I’m sure you have a ton of “scientific proof” to back that theory. I assert that the brain (as well as your body and the rest of the physical universe) is inside the Mind. I doubt either of us will ever concede to the other’s POV, and, therefore, there is no grounds for debate. It would be like trying to discuss the solar system to someone who firmly believes (KNOWS?) that it revolves around the planet earth. Those “scholars” at that time “knew”, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that this planet was the center in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Of course, I can offer no “proof” for my position since it comes from personal observation, which you can just so conveniently dismiss as delusional. I’m totally OK with that but I will always stand behind MY direct observations rather than the ever-changing evidence of the prejudiced, slow-to-change scientific community.
Quantum mechanics and quantum physics is just beginning to glimpse a universe that has been fully described by mystics and other “enlightened” beings for thousands of years. This is my world and I find it to be a very fun place to live. Within it, I still feel the effects of conscience but I find it to be the storage place of the “world story”, a collection of political, cultural, social and religious mumbo-jumbo that is imprinted on each of us from the moment we are born. I can hardly believe that anyone could possibly look to their conscience as the definitive source for any decision (other than maybe what color socks to wear today).
This is not meant to be a conclusive commentary on my POV for it would take a book-length discussion to even begin to explain it. And, I’m not even trying to get you to SEE my side, let alone agree with it. I’m simply pointing out why I didn’t even want to start this dialogue. Sorry, I won’t be part of the minions who will love and use this particular aphorism. I’m sure there are plenty of other people who will read it and think it is deep and meaningful.
“one man’s aphorism is another man’s ‘meh, no thanks’ ” FMC
Yes, but quantum mechanics is science. You can count on it — even though cause and effect does not follow the dictates of Newtonian physics, the rules within quantum physics are followed and scientific experiments yield expected results. Unlike as Frank Zappa put it “Cosmic Debris”