The apothegmatic style well employed gives away very little for the readers and listeners. They have a responsibility to strain and seek, and the writers and speakers who love them most would not dare take this responsibility away from them.
A man who cuts off a conversation with a proverb is least worthy to wield the proverb on his tongue. One might say that pro-verbium is merely a word-put-forth, but it should also be a word-on-behalf-of, -in-service-of, -for-the-sake-of. Of what? A conversation.
There are two kinds of maxims: one that is an impetus for further thinking, and the other that is a summation of much experience and a summary of what would have been a great and lengthy account. But who can say that beginnings and ends govern human affairs any differently? There is, then, only one kind of maxim.
What better way to “unlearn” untruth than through a maxim, which is both a fragment and a whole, is a beginning and an end, and in all cases is unwilling to submit to the System.
Obscurity, ambiguity, paradox, antinomy—these are not the enemies of truth. They are rather the enemies of ease. What has ease got to do with truth?