Maverick Philosopher makes a joke...

. . . or an aphorism.

My cybernetic friend, Bill Vallicella, explains "How an Aphorism is Like a Joke":

"A joke that needs explanation is a failure as a joke. An aphorism that supplies either elucidation or argument for the insight it delivers is a failure as an aphorism."

Bill then laconically adds:

"What I have just written is an aphorism. I will not spoil it with elucidation or argument."

According to the Free Dictionary, an aphorism is a "tersely phrased statement of a truth or opinion." This implies that it ought to be a single sentence.

If this is not only correct but also Bill's rule of thumb, then by "aphorism," he must mean this statement:

"An aphorism that supplies either elucidation or argument for the insight it delivers is a failure as an aphorism."

This is an aphorism that explains how an aphorism can fail. It should therefore fail as an aphorism. The explanation, however, is not external to Bill's aphorism but integral to it. It therefore succeeds as an aphorism.

More could be said.

But I won't say it. Besides, Bill was making a joke -- or perhaps more of a witticism.

Whether aphorism, joke, or witticism, Bill might have been more concise:

"An aphorism supplying elucidation or argument for the insight delivered fails as an aphorism."

Or in my own words:

"An aphorism explaining itself fails as an aphorism."

I wish that I could make it rhyme like this:

"A joke explained is a joke disdained."

Possibly:

"An aphorism detailed is an aphorism failed."

Suggestions are welcomed.