APHORISM AS A LABORATORY OF THINKING THROUGH THE PRISMS OF NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE By Mikhail Epstein *** The Montréal Review, January 2025 |
|||
The aphorism, a captivating literary genre, embodies the principle of 'the greatest in the smallest.' Its inherent paradox lies in the interplay between the broadest scope of generalization and the conciseness of its structure. In its compactness, the aphorism is akin to a "white dwarf"—the densest star in the intellectual cosmos. It serves as a microcosm of thought, revealing the components that make up thought itself and their dramatic interactions. A sentence—a linguistic, syntactic unit—is typically defined as a string of words that expresses a "complete thought," but in reality, this is hardly the case. Consider the sentences "It was quiet" and "The grass is green." While structurally complete, they do not embody thought but only convey information. On the other hand, a sentence like "In order to create something, one has to be something" (Goethe) leaves no doubt as to the completeness of the thought expressed, its meaningfulness and comprehensibility outside any particular context. One could even say that an aphorism is the minimal unit of thought, its molecule, on the basis of which one can model the properties of thought as such. [1] In his 2003 study, 'The Aphorism: Fragments from the Breakdown of Reason,' published in New Literary History, the distinguished American literary scholar and thinker Gary Saul Morson explores the distinctive 'worldview' inherent to the genre of the aphorism. In his analysis, Morson partly adopted Mikhail Bakhtin's methodology, which describes the novel's worldview as open, searching, and evolving—a stark contrast to the epic's noted completeness. Morson then differentiates between two types of concise, generalizing statements: dictum and aphorism.[2] The dictum, encompassing definitions, maxims, sententiae, and slogans, simplifies a phenomenon, distilling it to its essence and offering solutions. A typical example, cited by Morson: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles" (Marx and Engels). By contrast, an aphorism, according to Morson, hints at a mystery without providing a solution. It does not exhaust a phenomenon's essence but rather harbors something unspoken, lying beyond the words themselves, thus setting thought on a potentially infinite journey. "Wonder confronts certainty"—this is how aphorism confronts dictum. This can be illustrated by the aphorisms of Lao Tzu: "The way that can be spoken of is not the constant way. The name that can be named is not the constant name" (Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching, 1). According to such aphorisms, what is known and spoken of is essentially unknowable and ineffable. Of course, not all aphorisms deal with themes of the inexpressible or hint at transcendent mysteries. But Morson's distinction is deeply justified: "in contrast to the aphorism, which tends to curl back on itself, the dictum avoids self-reference of the sort that might generate paradox and doubt." According to Morson, aphorisms are not composed with the goal of "ruling"; in them, thought is not rectilinear but rather circular, continually returning to its point of departure. How is an aphorism structured? Is it feasible to articulate the logical structure underlying the infinitely diverse aphoristic creativity? I will demonstrate that aphoristic thinking is fundamentally characterized by a structural interplay between two antitheses. These antitheses intersect in such a way that the four foundational concepts rearrange in alternative modes to produce a new meaning. Occasionally, this structure may incorporate a fifth element or be streamlined to three; however, its essence is tetradic, persisting in the dynamic pairing of two antitheses. Hippocrates of the 5th-4th centuries BC was the first to call his sayings aphorisms, and the first of them is the most famous: "Art is long, life is short." Like its famous Latin paraphrase (Vīta brevis, ars longa), it consists of four words paired with each other:
This represents a deployment of two antitheses:
Thus, the aphorism consists of four elements (word-concepts) and two antitheses, the members of which are paired. If we denote life as +A, then its opposite will be non-life, that is art, or -A. If we denote longevity as +B, then its opposite will be transience, or -B. (Pluses and minuses here are not to imply any evaluation of the particular concept but only to designate their opposition to one another.) The formula for this aphorism is thus the cross-shifting of opposite signs:
The saying of the ancient Greek sage and ruler Solon, "Learn to obey before you command," likewise combines two antitheses:
Goethe's famous aphorism follows the same scheme: "To create something, one must be something."
William Blake's aphorism "Joys impregnate. Sorrows bring forth" also consists of two antitheses:
The presupposition is that joy is preferable to sorrow. But the aphorism affirms that sorrow is no less fruitful than joy since it generates the new and is a force of creativity. The art of the aphorism lies in taking common presuppositions and transforming them to unveil novel perspectives or deeper insights. By challenging and subverting these accepted notions, aphorisms provoke thought and question conventional wisdom. Lao Tzu's saying, cited by Morson as an example of a true aphorism, can also be read as an intersection of two antitheses: "The way that can be spoken of is not the constant way." If the way (Tao) can be spoken of, it is not constant; if it cannot be spoken of, it is constant.
In aphorisms, concepts depart from their accustomed pairings and become embedded in other combinations. An aphorism transforms established ideas, defining the infinite and giving voice to the unspeakable. Let's consider another variation of the aphorism—its contraction to three elements. La Rochefoucauld's aphorism "there is more self-love than love in jealousy" would seem to deviate from the classical model, since there are only three significant concepts here: jealousy, love, and self-love. But the aphorism asserts that to be jealous means to love, not the object of jealousy, but oneself. Thus, behind the three evident concepts lies a four-element structure:
Aphorisms can contain complex, multilayered structures where an antithesis on one level is embedded in another antithesis on a higher level. This complexity adds depth and richness to the statement, as for example in the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus: "Death is nothing to us. When we exist, death is not; and when death exists, we are not."
These elements from the top and bottom rows intersect in two possible combinations. If we exist, then death does not; if death exists, then we do not.
We see here the repetition or duplication of a structural pattern within the aphorism, where two sets of antitheses are contrasted with one another. Aphorisms can possess a self-reflective quality, where one part of the statement mirrors or inversely reflects another, often leading to a kind of conceptual symmetry. Such doubling is found in Lev Tolstoy: "People usually live according to the thoughts of others and their own feelings, but one should live according to one's own thoughts and the feelings of others." Two pairs of concepts are opposed, which can intersect in different ways:
Tolstoy gives both variants of intersection: "one's own feelings—another's thoughts" and "one's own thoughts—another's feelings." These two antitheses are connected, on another level, by a relationship that is itself antithetical. As we see, in all these cases, aphorisms are generated by the intersection of two antitheses, which can be simple or complex. Why does this structure typically involve four elements? Thinking is based on the juxtaposition and opposition of concepts, but opposition itself does not provide the elements' dynamic. To think means to set concepts in motion. This purpose is best served by two antitheses, since the concepts in them can move from one to the other and regroup themselves in different ways. The deep dynamics of concepts arises when two antitheses intersect. The tetradic structure is perceived as "curled back on itself," to use Morson's expression. A small mirror is inserted into the aphorism, as it were: one part of it is reflected in the other, often in an inverted form. "If there is death, there is no us. If there is us, there is no death." Thanks to this mirror-like quality, the aphorism is perceived as a closed whole, as a self-sufficient organism of thought. Strictly speaking, a thought, as a unit of thinking, is just such a "reversal" of concepts, a rotation around the axis of symmetry. The aphorism is self-reflective, not because it reflects on itself, but because it is generated by the self-reversal of concepts. Like a boomerang or ricochet, it flies away from its start-point and returns. How can an aphorism be constructed? Now, having identified the matrix of aphoristic thinking, let us try to use it for creative purposes, i.e., to generate new aphorisms on its basis. Below is a series of experimental aphorisms that I have crafted according to the model of the genre that I have just described. Here is a simple aphorism consisting of two intersecting antitheses: Truth makes its way to people on foot, while kindness flies to them.
Truth is knowledge, kindness is action, so it spreads faster. In writing, we draft and revise; in living, each moment is a final edition.
Sin never feels as sweet as its anticipation, nor as bitter as its aftermath. Two antitheses are combined:
The best writers are ruthless in their observations and generous in their judgments. Great writers are ruthless in that they tell the bitter truth about the world; and at the same time generous, because this truth does not keep them from loving the world and humankind in it.
Among a thousand voices, one silence speaks loudest.
The aphorism connects these concepts crosswise and reverses their original ratio. Of course, aphoristic thinking cannot simply be learned—it always contains, first, an element of unpredictability, and second, a reflection of life experience. How AI generates aphorisms Now I will move further into the new realm of generative artificial intelligence. I have been engaged with AI studies since early 2023; in particular, I have conducted experiments comparing the logic of artificial intelligence with natural intelligence in several recently published pieces.[3] In June 2023, I turned to Bard (now Gemini, a Google AI model) and requested that it compose an aphorism about AI itself. Here is what it produced: "Humanity is most threatened not by artificial intelligence, but by natural stupidity." Significantly, this aphorism exemplifies the two-antithesis pattern I previously described: artificial (+A) versus natural (-A), and intelligence (+B) versus stupidity (-B). Later, by leveraging new AI capabilities and a larger contextual window, I input the full text of this article on the study of aphorisms into the large language models Claude (from Anthropic) and ChatGPT-4 (from OpenAI). I then tasked them with crafting new aphorisms based on the structural framework outlined in my article. Here is an example of the prompts I used: "Read this article on the structure of aphorisms and generate new aphorisms on the basis of this structure of double oppositions. Be creative and witty. Use paradoxes. You have to coin only original aphorisms. Plagiarism is the greatest sin." Furthermore, using Google, I checked how original these "artificial" aphorisms are, discarding several clearly borrowed ones. (The AI repented for its plagiarism and promised to improve.) Now, I present a series of AI-generated aphorisms for your consideration. It seems to me that at least some of them, especially those created by Claude, meet the intellectual criteria of aphoristic art. Here is Claude's preamble to its output:
Below are six aphorisms composed by Claude:
This is the classical type of aphorism: the intersection of two oppositions:
Along with the two-part structure that establishes a new connection between two antitheses, Claude introduces a tripartite structure, in which a third element either resolves, transcends, or provides a new perspective on the initial opposition. The pessimist sees a dead end; the optimist sees a detour. The innovator sees an opportunity to build a new road. Claude's explanation: "This aphorism has a three-part structure, each revealing a different perspective on a challenging situation. The oppositions here are:
Another example of tripartite structure:
Further, I will cite three aphorisms composed by ChatGPT-4:
As ChatGPT-4 remarks: "These aphorisms were crafted to reflect a clear interplay between two sets of opposing concepts, aiming to provoke thought and introspection."
Rhyming Concepts and Mental Catharsis Aphorisms may be crafted in prose or verse, but fundamentally, the creation of aphorisms is a poetic act. It can be regarded as the 'poetry of rhyming concepts.' Unlike prose, poetry is distinguished by its rhythmic structure—the segmentation of speech into measured and harmonious units. In aphorisms, this harmonic resonance arises from the meanings of words—their conceptual, "con-sensual" rhymes and patterns. An aphorism that interweaves two antitheses can be likened to cross rhyme in a quatrain. Thus, in Seneca's aphorism "Fate leads the willing and drags the unwilling," concepts "rhyme" according to the scheme that in versification is usually denoted as abab where the first line rhymes with the third, and the second with the fourth:
At the same time, the art of crafting aphorisms finds a counterpart in prose through the construction of narrative plots. Yuri Lotman, in his concept of the 'semiosphere,' posits that an event—the fundamental unit of a plot—occurs through the crossing of boundaries between semantic fields. A plot unfolds as a series of such events, each one breaching semantic limits and igniting a revolutionary shift in the static worldview. Applying this concept to aphorisms, they can be understood as events in the realm of thought, marked by the crossing of conceptual boundaries. Aphorisms act as micro-revolutions of the mind. Therefore, they must be brief, capturing the essence of a revolution, as opposed to the gradual progression of evolution. While semantic fields are expansive, their borders are thin, allowing instantaneous crossings by a single mental event. Thus, an aphorism embodies a 'revolutionary' thought—timeless, compact, and comparable to a fundamental quantum of creative insight. The genre of aphorism reveals the drama of thought—its internal paradoxes, dynamism, and inherent tragic or comic tensions. As I noted in my initial exploration of this topic, in my entry 'Aforistika' for Literary Encyclopedia (1978): "The art of the aphorism often starts with concepts that are opposite or identical, either converging or diverging them, thereby facilitating a catharsis—a cleansing of the mind from biases and narrow perspectives."[4] Indeed, aphorisms can induce a mental catharsis by juxtaposing or distinguishing concepts, thus liberating the mind from partiality. The aphoristic wisdom significantly aids the dynamic balance and integration of ideas and can induce a mental catharsis liberating the mind from partiality. Anthony Burgess once observed, 'Aphorisms are like advocates, seeing only one side of a case.' However, I perceive aphorisms differently; they act like acrobats, twirling the universe around themselves, capturing it from every conceivable perspective. ***
***
|