Hey OP, I got some aphorisms too:
>It is true that a frog in a well might be ignorant of the world that lies around it, but not the firmament above. Indeed, even in the water there beneath him, he will have a glimpse of the infinite eternal, and with much less to distract him than those whose lines of sight are much more horizontally inclined. This is why, therefore, the least worldly men are still often the most wise, for they tend not to clutter their minds with small and worldly things of little consequence - though of course, they may not have had the luxury of choosing. For this reason, Joyce was right to say of his native Dublin, in explaining why he chose it as the setting for his Ulysses, that the universal lies in the particular.
>Those who insist that a successor must not suffer for the sins of their predecessors, are nonetheless insistent that the latter be permitted to make the former suffer, should they perceive the sins of the latter as directed unto them. No clearer evidence of this have we than with the dwindling number of former, nonagenerian 'Nazis' - who, typically having participated in the regime under duress and having played very minor parts in any case, find themselves wheeled out to face the judgement of their victors' children and grandchildren.
>Across the spectrum, one hears a certain claim in contradiction to that of Louis XIV: "L'etat c'est ne pas moi!" Seemingly unrelated is the claim of de Maistre who, speaking in regard to the US Constitution, declared that a constitution for all is a constitution for none. In the spirit of this claim, with regard to the former, we are left with a question: Can a state with whom no one identifies, be for everyone? Can this be so?
>The conservative is one who, looking for a collective to which he can belong, either does not realize there is only a rabble or has foolishly consigned himself to one. The latter deserves his fate, whereas for the former there is hope.
>Is Chomsky not rather some sort of philosophical asbestos? He places himself as a buffer, between the reader and the inferno of modern capitalism and all the maladies contained therein - and yet he chokes you, slowly and in secret, from within.
>Somehow, the French have managed to portray themselves as the most qualified of all peoples in matters of taste - yet I can think of no finer example of French taste than of Proust's comments in regards to asparagus, comparing the pungent odour it imbues upon one's piss to a flask of perfume.
>The Ancient Greeks, it is true, could not turn water into wine - and yet they treated it as such. Is that not more admirable?
