{"id":7326,"date":"2015-03-06T05:35:25","date_gmt":"2015-03-06T05:35:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2015\/03\/06\/precious-metals\/"},"modified":"2015-03-06T05:35:25","modified_gmt":"2015-03-06T05:35:25","slug":"precious-metals","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2015\/03\/06\/precious-metals\/","title":{"rendered":"Precious Metals"},"content":{"rendered":"

In soul-trying times, 'lead' joins gold as a precious metal.<\/span><\/p>\n

……………………………………..<\/span><\/p>\n

Addendum on the Art of the Aphorism<\/em>.  Elliot comments,<\/span> <\/p>\n

\n

Your aphorism sparked my thinking. After reading the aphorism, it occurred to me that there are at least two interpretations: one material and one spiritual.<\/span> <\/p>\n

The material interpretation is that 'lead' refers to the metal, symbol Pb, atomic number 82, which can be used to make bullets. This point may be why the aphorism is categorized in the ATF section. The spiritual interpretation is that 'lead' refers to the verb 'to lead' or 'to be led'. In soul-trying times, the presence of wise guidance to lead (or to be led by wise guidance) is more precious than gold. Images of leading out and being led out of Plato's Cave came to mind. Proverbs 8:10-11 and 16:16 came to mind as well. Both passages put wisdom and instruction above precious metals.<\/span> <\/p>\n

It's a wonderful aphorism!<\/span> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Elliot's comment, for which I am grateful, shows that there is more to an aphorism than what the writer intends.  There is also what the reader takes away from it.  <\/span><\/p>\n

The material interpretation is what I had in mind.  Lead is not a precious metal.  But lead is the stuff of bullets, and bullets — or rather the rounds of which bullets are the projectiles – are precious as means for the defense of the Lockean triad of life, liberty, and property, including gold.  So while lead is not a precious metal, 'lead' is precious.  <\/span><\/p>\n

'Soul-trying times' is a compressed way of bringing  the reader to recall Thomas Paine<\/a>: "These are the times that try men's souls."  So my first version went like this:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

In these times that try men's souls, 'lead' joins gold as a precious metal.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

But I changed it for three reasons.  First, briefer is better when it comes to aphorisms. Second, the revision is less of a clich\u00e9.  Third, while I insist on the propriety of standard English, I was not this morning in the mood to distract or offend my distaff readers, all five of them.<\/span><\/p>\n

Is the final version a good aphorism?  Logically prior question: is it an aphorism at all?  Just what is an aphorism? R. J. Hollingdale:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

In its pure and perfect form the aphorism is distinguished by four qualities occurring together: it is brief, it is isolated, it is witty, and it is 'philosophical.' This last quality marks it off from the epigram, which is essentially no more than a witty observation; the third, which it shares with the epigram, marks it off from the proverb or maxim . . . (Georg Christoph Lichtenberg, The Waste Books<\/em>, p. x)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

My effort is brief, and it is isolated.  It is isolated in that it stands alone.  But I don't take this to imply that an aphorism may consist of only one sentence.  It may consist of two or more.  But at some point it becomes what I call an 'observation.'  Hence my category, Aphorisms and Observations<\/a>.  Another aspect of isolation is that an aphorism to be such must be bare of argumentative support.  No aphorism can be split into premise(s) and conclusion.  One does not argue in an aphorism; one states.<\/span><\/p>\n

"What about Descartes' cogito<\/em>?"  If cogito ergo sum<\/em> is an enthymematic argument, then it is not an aphorism.<\/span><\/p>\n

I also take isolation to imply that an aphorism, in the strict sense, cannot be a sentence taken from a wider context and set apart.  In a wider context that I don't feel like hunting down at the moment, Schopenhauer writes, brilliantly,<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Das Leben ist ein Geschaeft das seine Kosten nicht deckt<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Life is a business that doesn't cover its costs.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That is not an aphorism by my strict definition.  For it lacks isolation in my strict sense of 'isolation.'<\/span><\/p>\n

Is my effort witty and 'philosophical'?  It is witty and therefore not a proverb or maxim.  These are competing proverbs, not competing aphorisms:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Haste makes waste.<\/span><\/p>\n

He who hesitates is lost.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Is it 'philosophical'?  Yes, inasmuch as it is more than merely witty for reasons that I think are obvious.  It is not an epigram.<\/span><\/p>\n

So my effort is an aphorism.  But is it a good<\/em> aphorism?  It is pretty good, though not as good as this gem from the pen of Henry David Thoreau:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

A man sits as many risks as he runs.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

But my effort, like Thoreau's involves a 'twist,' which is part of what distinguishes an aphorism from a proverb or maxim and makes it witty.  It is idiomatic that we run risks.  We don't sit risks.  The brilliance of Thoreau's aphorism resides in the collision of the hackneyed with the novel.<\/span><\/p>\n

Similarly with<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

In soul-trying times, 'lead' joins gold as a precious metal.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

My aphorism arranges a collision between the mundane fact that lead is not a precious metal with the less obvious fact that guns and ammo are necessary for the defense of life, liberty, and property.  It also exploits an equivocation on 'precious metal.'<\/span><\/p>\n

As for what occasioned this morning's aphorism, see here<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

\nRelated articles<\/legend>\n
\n
\"\"<\/a>Suggestions on How to Study<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/fieldset>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In soul-trying times, 'lead' joins gold as a precious metal. …………………………………….. Addendum on the Art of the Aphorism.  Elliot comments, Your aphorism sparked my thinking. After reading the aphorism, it occurred to me that there are at least two interpretations: one material and one spiritual. The material interpretation is that 'lead' refers to the metal, … Continue reading “Precious Metals”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[112,69,40],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7326","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-alcohol-tobacco-and-firearms","category-aphorisms-and-observations","category-literary-matters"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7326","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7326"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7326\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7326"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7326"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7326"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}