"…it is my ambition to say in ten sentences what everyone else says in a book - what everyone else does not say in a book." Nietzsche. Twilight of the Idols, section 'Skirmishes of an untimely man' #51, 1888.

Following Nietzsche's methodology and ambition, I want to say in this "book" more than anyone else said anywhere at any time. The key insight was in ascertaining Nietzsche's depth and understanding of the methodology of aphorisms. All of the great philosophers Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Schelling, Hegel, Nietzsche, and Heidegger uniquely and creatively altered the very nature of philosophy through the fundamental and radical transformation of the essential nature of the philosophical methodology. I am going to try to follow their pathway in my own small approach.

Nietzsche used different methodologies, but it was the aphorism that Nietzsche became the dedicated master. The aphorism has a long history from the early times, for example, Aphorism written in 400 BC by Hippocrates (460-377 BC) or the Latin writer Valerius Marcus Valerius (43 AD- 104 AD) on up to our age. Aphorisms or something close to them have been used in India (sutras) and perhaps China and Japan (koan) for a long time. Recently, in China the Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung was printed in the 100s of millions. Supposedly, every adult in China was to have copy. Of course, some writers, philosophers, and thinkers are more self-conscious about using the aphorism as a methodology as opposed to selecting quotes or quips (I think of Bob Hope). In addition, we have ancient wall graffiti or the phenomena of car bumper-stickers as examples of the cultural aphorism.

This writing project is not a question of scholarship or the kindred use of poetry. I have already learned to walk, run, dance, fly on earth, but I am also ready to go weightless. These writings are attempts to go from peak to peak in the whole process of self-education. Before I could 'give' anything to the educated, I must first educate myself and it is this process that is documented in these writings. These writings were not produced by first thinking everything through and then writing down the story and its explanation for some common average person (the 'one'). This is not a book similar to a history lesson. The voyage on these seas was a different process. Every rock I turned up and/or went around is in here. All the steps and jumps are in here. Sometimes where I fell down is all part of the process and these up-jumps from the ground are also somehow found 'in' these writings. Stumbling is perhaps the rule in attempts at genuine philosophical thinking. The nature of philosophical thinking should reveal itself here because I have tried to be at the "roots" (in the very soil) of thought. Remember what the Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) remarked in the Preface to his Philosophical Investigations (circa 1949),

"The best that I could write would never be more than philosophical remarks; my thoughts were soon crippled if I tried to force them on in any single direction against their natural inclination. -- And this was, of course, connected with the very nature of the investigation." I have tried to follow these instructions and not to 'force' my thoughts into some direction or to somehow help the reader understand these writings. If a reader does not understand my aphorisms is that my fault, the reader's, the grammar, the language, or just a simple lack of depth? Some of these aphorisms are written in blood and the reader may get bloody reading and unpacking these aphorisms. Sometimes, you have to break eggs. You may see the Nietzschean hammer breaking the eggs. Well, so be it - so much for eggs. Dangerous thoughts may revolt and break things. Aphorisms may unfurl and leap off the page and attack you - do not sit down and take it - use your gray matter and attack back. Aphorisms may be like a snake or spider or big cat crouched and waiting to leap on your back in the dark when you least expect (reach up and bite you). On the other hand, were you expecting the hidden dragon? Nietzsche said, "I no longer pay regard to readers: how could I write for readers? ... But I take note, for me." (KSA XII, p. 450, KGW VIII-2, p. 114, MGW XIV, 373f.). How do I write for you - the reader? Let us be clear on who writes and who reads the text. This is not an explaination of some old dry, historical philosopher. This is my living thought. I have tried to pack them up as well as I could. We have grown accustomed to having everything done for 'us', so that no thinking is required. Well, not this time; you have to engage in philosophical thinking when reading these writings (or, so I hope). This so called "book" is not like a normal book that is nicely wrapped up and made easy for you. I make no pretense of offering anything 'great' in these writings, but perhaps as you unriddle your own thoughts, it may all be 'worth it' for you to read these writings; on the other hand, you may not 'gain' anything but actually 'lose' something as you read these aphorisms. Perhaps it is something you should 'lose'. This so called "book" is not designed to help you understanding Heidegger or Nietzsche - perhaps all books that do attempt that are indeed a real folly of a concept.

Be careful, since honesty governs any good strategic reading. After reading these aphorisms, you and I may both be at a loss for words, thoughts, and deeds. As Ludwig Feuerbach said, there is more to life than just interpreting the world, since the trick is to change the world. Maybe we just need to change a few minds. What is important is beyond the simple details. While it is in some sense undeniable that we are what we 'read', on the other hand, we make the "text" disappear under our interpretation, since the 'understanding' is limited as a type of thinking, as a type of methodology for philosophical thought. Will the incessant noise in your head alarm you? Or are you just another complacent reader of philosophy? Are you looking for the rational foundation of truth as if Descartes, Leibniz, and Kant were still alive and well? Keep looking. Wisdom can be put on a platter and given to the MTV crowd and everyone will go home happy (bête noire). Confronting the popular with philosophy always meets with mixed or shall we tell the truth - with bad results. The greatest good (athondon and summum bonum) and the absolute idea are not given here. Values should all be twisted out and left behind with metaphysics.

This articulation of philosophical writing is only for the faithful (semper fidelis). As a consequence, perhaps you can leave right now, since these peaks are very high and you may not yet be ready for such high altitudes. 8000 meter peaks are not for everyone as we shall see. Pondering the profound is not for everyone on every day, since some days are to live the unexamined life. As Nietzsche once suggested you must hear all of this with your third ear and only then will you 'hear' or 'see' it right. Is all of this "my philosophy" - perhaps not!! Yes and no. You can try to unriddle the riddle or perhaps it will unriddle you in the knot of philosophizing. I am talking to 'you' the "reader" or perhaps you did not 'hear' this right. The finger is pointing toward a philosophical text that is not a just a typical philosophical text. Do you have the ability to "see" where this finger is pointing or is that to clear for you? Given the subtle and perhaps difficult nature of philosophical thought, it may seem like capturing this in language is, without a doubt, a little problematic for any reader and of course let us not forget the writer and thinker of these aphorisms. Nietzsche said, "That for thousands of years European thinkers thought merely in order to prove something - today, conversely, we suspect every thinker who"wants to prove something" Beyond Good and Evil, part five, #188). This is not your philosophy as taught in university departments as if you were looking for the proof of God's existense or the proof for moral laws and triumph of good or evil
- no is this more complex than this simple sandbox version of philosophy and philosophizing, where you learn about proof and logic.

Given these dangerous questions marks and general red marks from the hammer, what should we make of this medley of thoughts? Heidegger wants us to think one thought - these aphorisms are a flood of thoughts and ideas about other thoughts and ideas; and what may all this mean?---so how does Heidegger write 100+ volumes about a single thought. Can we nitimur in vetium? Who are my predestined readers? Where are they? I am not sure I have given everyone the right answers in this text, but perhaps I have given some of the right - questions.

Aphorisms, aphorismus, aphorismos -- not just a definition or short statement of a principle; but more than that, aphorisms are thoughts and ideas encapsulated in language. The thinking process is some how created and caught in language. But in the case of aphorisms, the claim is that they are closer and more directly linked to thinking. That is, thoughts not strained into some formal or systematic book or essay that is a re-presentation of some thoughts that are forced and re-worked into a pseudo-structure of a written "book". Yes, the aphorism methodology is an anti-book format. These are not philosophical "works" (Werke). Wittgenstein's Investigations and Heidegger's Contributions are not really investigations or contributions - both of them deny that the titles of those works speak to the methodology question of what they are attempting to do with their philosophical "writings". Heidegger says his 'writing' is not "giving the impression that it is dealing with "scholarly contributions" aimed at some "progress" in philosophy."(GA 65, first few sentences). Hence, even the title of his philosophical writing in this case is exceedingly problematic. Heidegger says, "Future thinking is a thinking that is underway." (GA 65, first page). Aphorisms do not have an internal formal structure, so they are not completed and hence, come to a formal end (a book's pseudo-conclusion). In the other words, we can always continue to think more thoughts and add more aphorisms. Aphorisms are a perfect example of thinking that is constantly underway and starting over; thinking that begins over and over every time that I start a new aphorism. Aphorisms are a keen example of thinking that is flowing and underway. The issue of when to come to an end will be taken up in the conclusion of this writing project.

Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (1781) is one of the major works in the history of philosophy; however, it is complex and difficult to understand. Kant says he was working out the method, that is, the proper method for metaphysics.

"It is a treatise on the method, not a system of the science itself; but it catalogs the entire outline of the science of metaphysics, both in respect of its boundaries and in respect of its entire internal structure." (Critique of Pure Reason, p. Bxxii).

Kant said this in the preface and I am not sure he carried it through in his completed "book", but the method issue is certainly one of the central purposes of his project. The second part is called the 'Doctrine of Method' and includes a discussion of one of Kant's key concepts (now generally forgotten): "architectonics". Kant said in the introduction, "Transcendental philosophy is here the idea of a science, for which the critique of pure reason is to outline the entire plan architectonically, i. e., from principles, with a full guarantee for the completeness and certainty of all the components that comprise this edifice." (Critique of Pure Reason, p. A13). Do you feel the weight and metaphysical heaviness of the Kantian thought and methodology? This seems almost a complete opposite to the use of the methodology of aphorisms. Can we now make the point that perhaps in contrast to metaphysical thinking, the aphoristic methodology may be able to lead us out of metaphysical thinking, or at least prepare some of the ground for those modern anti-metaphysical tendencies? Can we attempt to break out of the metaphysical web by using the pseudo-structure of a philosophy "book" or "work" or "contributions" to philosophy?

Kant said something that needs to be read and re-read, and then re-read again; since this sounds like the great critical thinker that is in fact - Kant (not what the current reading of Kant would have us believe). Kant is reported to have said the following in his lectures on Logic (note this was published late in Kant's lifetime). "How should it be possible to learn philosophy anyway? Every philosophical thinker builds is own work, so to be speak, on someone's else's ruins, but no work has ever come to be that was to be lasting in all its parts. Hence, one cannot learn philosophy, then, just because it is not yet given. But even granted that there is a philosophy actually at hand, no one who learned it would be able to say he was a philosopher, for subjectively his cognitions of it would always be only historical." (Lectures on Logic, "The Jäsche Logic", first published in 1800, et. p. 538). Kant right above this remark hits the nail on the head, when he says, "No one at all can call himself a philosopher who cannot philosophize. Philosophizing can be learned, however, only through practice…" (Lectures on Logic, "The Jäsche Logic", first published in 1800, et. p. 538). This all points us toward a deeper understanding of what it means to philosophize, by having critical encounters and to confront philosophers and thinkers with task of thinking itself. Critical thinking is design to engage a philosopher at the deepest level of their thought. Philosophy is philosophizing, and I hope this is an example of real authentic philosophy. Kant must speak to us across 200 years of human history; and indeed, his thinking is not dead. Let Kant speak.

Readers must be long and perhaps a touch of silence would have helped when you reading this text. Light feet are needed for any serious climbing and for reading aphorisms. You ask about the Hegelian system of metaphysics during the day, but wouldn't you rather read Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1792-1799) late at night. Some of these aphorisms are heavy thoughts (the weight of ages and years of metaphysic's preponderance) and others; I hope, should be light and flutter from the peaks. I am not entirely happy with Nietzsche or Heidegger or a number of other thinkers (why do this at all if everything is fine). Hence, a polemical stance may yet see the light of day or maybe just stars at night. Who would really want someone to be a "disciple"? Way too low for Heidegger and Nietzsche. Philosophers and disciples are a contradiction in terms. Does our will to life, will to our love, will to philosophy - only just mean a will to more of the same? Hint or answer - which do you crave now?

Nietzsche said, "A new species of philosophers is coming up: I venture to baptize them with a name that is not free of danger. As I unriddle them, insofar as they allow themselves to be unriddled - for it belongs to their nature to want to remain riddles at some point - these philosophers of the future may have a right - it might also be a wrong - to be called attempters. This name itself is in the end a mere attempt and, if you will, a temptation." (Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future, part 2, #42). Can you hear with your third ear the call for you to join ranks with the "attempters"? This prize is what Nietzsche wants us to become. Hyperborean Maxims, perhaps this is all what we must say and let the light of truth appear in the darkness night. Underneath this text is riddle that we all must now search for and this is the finger directing you to think for yourself. Are you still looking for the rational foundation to our thinking? Look no further! Through these writings and ponderings have I finally found myself under a rock? Now that these writings have been put on paper, are they finally 'done"? Will I not re-work these and re-publish them in another few years? Are you having trouble with your reading or have you realized you need to re-think everything you held close. You found them and then just kept them as a book in a library. The more books you have the more important you think you are based on the volumes of others' work? Where are your volumes?

You readers of these aphorisms may advance, may gain an advantage over me, you may fall backwards into a philosophical abyss of relativism, or take wings and fly… Values need to be shaken like a good martini not stirred. The cup must be first empty, then full, and then empty again. Perhaps all that can be said in the end is that we must transverse some dangerous and novel question marks. Some unforgotten thoughts are now lost in the dustbin of history. Some aphorisms may require a long time to read and decipher - well, so be it. Aphorisms can also be a place and location for pondering, brooding, and ruminating. To muse is not a bad thing.

Are you ready for the refutations, the antithesis, and the final contradiction to all you have thought before (fixed ideas)? - It can now be thrown out in all of the bath water of philosophy. Be prepared for an entirely new beginning, a new way of thinking and philosophizing! Let us start shortly. Do you shudder at so much brevity in one place? All this may drive you mad one day. Where is our third ear when we need it?

Who would want to start with the Megarian poet Theognis (600 BC), for example, in the new so-called public institutions of universities and their philosophy departments? Why do we sub hoc signo - Nietzsche and Heidegger, and of course all philosophy? Somewhere as a reader of those aphorisms, (yes - you) you may find them utterly unendurable - remember the aphorisms were not written "for" you. Try to be light again; you deserve to gain some altitude on the mountain.

Do you not like parables or is it reality shows that light up your life? What life could that be? I hope you take everything to heart and then drive a stake into the heart and perhaps become a martyr - at least your becoming will be your own. The Buddha's shadow is still seen on the cave wall - only Marx has completely left the cave. Perhaps all writing is the way of Schadensfroh.

Meister Eckhart (1260-1327) said he wanted to ask God to rid himself of God, so you may ask God to make you an unbreakable heart or to rid yourself of these questions marks. Fat chance! Reading aphorisms is like getting in and out of cold water or it is just like reaching the summit of a mountain and tarrying too long at the top - a very dangerous thing to do, since reaching the top is optional and returning is not. Perhaps too high an altitude has not been good for rational arguments. But what makes humans strive for the heights no matter what else? What drives people to the mountain tops? What drives people to philosophical thinking? The underlying interrogative nature of humanity breaks out.

Heidegger's case is like a door, which has a sign overhead that says, "no entrance" on one side and on the other side says, "no exit". Perhaps Heidegger's fundamental philosophical thinking has an entrance, but we have problem that it has no easy exit or maybe no exit at all. Although Heidegger taught many courses on Hegel, he never published a single large written monograph on Hegel and the smaller projects he did publish are not of the same caliber as many of his other publications. Heidegger has made a point that once you enter Hegel's system you are caught by his assumptions. Are Hegel's assumptions and presuppositions different than Heidegger's assumptions and presuppositions? Hegel's system is so closely tied to his assumptions so that it is difficult to get any philosophical space or breathing room for thinking. Heidegger is more ambiguous about his assumptions. Where can we find an exit from Heidegger? Has Heidegger given us more philosophical breathing room for thinking and has he allowed Heideggerians to move into the Heidegger house; hence, the extreme amount of published writing about Heidegger? Help? Where is the exit?

Put Heidegger and Nietzsche directly in front of us and go directly to confront them - we cannot "go around" like our neo-Kantians friends have done with Kant. Even a Heideggerian leap will not help us to engage them. Has Heidegger succeeded in actually overcoming or overturning Hegel? Heidegger said let us put Hegel in front of us and then run in the opposite direction. In which direction does Heidegger want us to run? Why do we assume that there is some kind of progress and direction toward a better something in philosophy (or is the differences between Hegel and Heidegger just a simple matter of taste? Answer: no)? Progress is always an underlying assumption and presupposition for philosophers. Is Heidegger better than Hegel for us, since he is more recent?

Immanuel Kant said, "One can begin to calculate just after the building of the city of Rome, at which time the seven sages in Greece flourished through their epigrams, which the Orientals already had long ago. Aphorisms are what one calls many thoughts compressed into a few words." (Metaphysik L2, 1790-1791, AK 28: 535, et. p 302).

We will attempt to follow Kant's lead. You see there is reason to again and again return to Kant. As Heidegger said, as long as there is philosophy on the planet we need Kant. All philosophers need to be our dialogue - although we have taken Heidegger and Nietzsche to be named in our dialogue most of all.

Remarks on this specific text (which you hold in your hand).

"the text finally disappeared under the interpretation"

(Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future, part two, #38). Nietzsche italicized this remark for good reason. On one hand the text is just the text, on the other hand, the text is insufficient, what has not been said is filled with treasures. The unthought is what is between the lines - you the reader may reside in the hermeneutical sphere.

This "book" was written over a long period of time. Of course, it includes other thinkers than just Heidegger and Nietzsche. Some the text is more or less than aphorisms. Some of these are closer to scholia than to the form of aphorisms. Perhaps I have taken philosophical license with the format and methodology of some of these pages. For my readers you may take a step back and re-think the methodology of thinking. Part of the thrust of this "book" and this writing project is to look into the process of the thinking, language, and writing it all down on paper or on the computer. Note the recent interest in blogs. The anti-philosophy movements within philosophy itself are attempts to get closer to the roots of thinking and language. So many parts of this "book" are not about the contents, but more about the 'how' and the 'processes' of thinking (philosophizing). This text can be viewed as attempts at philosophizing. Have these attempts ripened enough to be published? I am the author and I say "yes"; but others may have different ideas - that is ok, since the ripening process may be more of an art than a science. A note of caution: the process of reading this text may not be to read it through in a short time, since it may be hard to digest these thoughts and questions in a brief time.

By now you may have guessed and solved the riddle that this "book" was not written to enlighten or inform you about some subject or topic. I did not research Heidegger or Nietzsche and then come up with a book about them. If you want to understand Heidegger and Nietzsche, there are other places to look for 'information' about them and their ideas. This is my encounter and dialogue with them and other philosophers. Perhaps a better title of this writing project could be: Dialogues with Philosophers. I am not going to give you arguments on Heidegger's or Nietzsche's ideas or their philosophical positions - you must go elsewhere if you want to read about their ideas. This is an unsystematic work by choice. As the author, I want to be clear to you the reader of what I expect of you - engage this "book" and then attempt your own dialogue.

Although this is not a proper preface or introduction I will leave with a remark from Heidegger about the texts found in the Will to Power.

"These passages are for the most part not simple, incomplete fragments and fleeting observations; rather, they are carefully worked out "aphorisms," as Nietzsche's individual notations are customarily called. But not every brief notation is automatically an aphorism, that is, an expression or saying which absolutely closes its borders to everything inessential and admits only what is essential." (Nietzsche volume 1, et p. 11).

I hope that only what is essential is included in this text. All of the rest can be thrown out.

Please enjoy these musings in the spirit that they were written. But if omissions, errors or defects are found within, please forgive them a little and have a little forbearance.

This paper is an experiment with the philosophical aphorism and is inspired by an intensive reading and consideration of the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche. The contents and ideas are not necessarily Nietzschean. Rather, it is a Nietzschean "methodology" that is attempted.

Nietzsche is the anti-system thinker par excellence. In the Twilight of the Idols he explains: "I mistrust all systematizers and I avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity." ('Maxims and Arrows', #26) If we are to follow this Nietzschean instinct, we must try to not write an essay 'about' Nietzsche, but rather use his method and attempt our own philosophy. But what is Nietzsche's method? Nietzsche experimented with several different kinds of methodology. His greatest advancement is his effectiveness and skillful use of the aphorism.

He is not the first one to use this method. Perhaps Gaius Catullus or Marcus Martialis made the first attempts in this direction. More recently, this method has been used by a diverse group of thinkers. The French thinkers Sebastien-Roch-Nicolas Chamfort and Francois de la Rochefoucauld are well known for their aphorisms. The Germans like F. W. J. Schelling, Ludwig Feurbach, Arthur Schopenhauer, Georg Lichterberg, Raoul Anernheimer, Hugo Hofmannsthal, Arthur Schnitzler, Richard Beer-Hofmann, Karl Kraus, Hermann Bahr, Rudolf Schroder, Marie Ebner-Eschenbach, and Max Horkheimer use the aphoristic methodology. However, it is the philologically trained Nietzsche whose name has become almost synonymous with the use of the aphorism, and has made it the most acclaimed and fitting instrument of wit and wisdom.

Walter Kaufmann calls Nietzsche's method monadological, but it is much more than this and richer. Nietzsche experimented with many forms of the aphorism; he also called them riddles, parables, epigrams, interludes, and maxims.

In a similar way, Ludwig Wittgenstein writes in the Preface to the Philosophical Investigations,

The best that I could write would never be more than philosophical remarks; my thoughts were soon crippled if I tried to force them on in any single direction against their natural inclination. -- And this was, of course, connected with the very nature of the investigation.

Wittgenstein's anti-method methodology and problem of forcing his thoughts in a 'single direction' during the writing of the Philosophical Investigations may lead to an aphoristic methodology, which is close to Wittgenstein's "method" during this phase.

With philosophical systematizers like Hegel or Spinoza, it is possible to try to re-present their systems, because they have an order, regularity and an attempted consistent position; but this is not the case with Nietzsche. Therefore, we cannot just re-present an aphorism or give a definition for a concept in Nietzsche's philosophy, for Nietzsche makes us attempt our own philosophy.

Again, Wittgenstein thinks in a similar way, "I should not like my writing to spare other people the trouble of thinking. But, if possible, to stimulate someone to thoughts of his own." (Philosophical Investigations).

Thus, the object of this experiment with the aphorism is to employ Nietzsche's anti-methodological method as way of doing philosophy; for we are in search of Zarathustra's new love.

As Nietzsche's says,

One repays a teacher badly if one always remains nothing but a pupil.

Now I bid you lose me and find yourselves; and only when you have all denied me will I return to you.

Verily, my brothers, with different eyes shall I then seek my lost ones; with a different love shall I then love you.
(Thus Spoke Zarathurstra, "On the gift-giving virtue")

The following are some of Nietzsche's general pronouncements about the methodology of aphorisms:

It is aphorisms. It is aphorisms? - may those who would reproach me thus reconsider a little and then ask pardon of themselves. (Gesammelte Werke (pub. 1920-29) MGW, XXI, #80)

Readers of aphorisms. The worst readers of aphorisms are the author's friend if they are intent on guessing back from the general to the particular instance to which the aphorism owes its origin; for with such pot-peeking they reduce the author's whole effort to nothing; so that they deservedly gain, not a philosophic outlook or instruction, but
- at best, or at worst, - nothing more than the satisfaction of vulgar curiosity. (Mixed Opinions and Maxims, #129)

Praise of aphorisms. A good aphorism is too hard for the tooth of time and is not consumed by all millennia, although it serves every time for nourishment: thus it is the great paradox of literature, the intransitory amid the changing, the food that always remains esteemed, like salt, and never loses its savor, as even that does. (Mixed Opinions and Maxims, #168)

In other cases, people find difficulty with the aphoristic form: this arises from the fact that today this form is not taken seriously enough. An aphorism, properly stamped and molded, has not been "deciphered" when it has simply been read; rather, one has then to begin its exegesis, for which is required an art of exegesis. (On the Genealogy of Morals, preface section 8).

The aphorism, the apothegm, in which I am the first among the Germans to be a master, are the forms of "eternity"; it is my ambition to say in ten sentences what everyone else says in a book - what everyone else does not say in a book. (Twilight of the Idols, "Skirmishes of an untimely man" section #51).

Whoever writes in blood and aphorisms does not want to be read but to be learned by heart. In the mountains the shortest way is from peak to peak: but for that one must have long legs. Aphorisms should be peaks - and those who are addressed, tall and lofty. (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, "On Reading and Writing").

The question to provide here is how to approach these forms of "eternity" (not eternal of course, but some long lasting). There is more to this methodology than just a short form of a book. Part of this methodology is an attack on logic, since the approach does not follow a logical form of syllogism. Aphorisms are not some variety of syllogistic argument. In addition, aphorisms are not short philosophical essays, since there is not a clear format connecting ideas. Conversely, there does indeed seem to be some affinity with poetry and some aphorisms are poetic. Aphorisms are nuggets of some kind of "eternity". We all need something otherwise why we read anything at all.