Cheimos Logos Phobos

Mike Labosierre proposed a challenge of twitter-like philosophy in three words / or 73 characters. The answers he got are not very encouraging to think that philosophy in brief is possible. They’re either dogmatic and/or hermetic like ‘no self entity’ or questions, which – although one may argue that they could lead to philosophical thinking – but usually don’t. Three-word philosophy invariably falls into the shallow or the arcane end of the pond. Such brevity is good for commandments, but not necessarily for philosophy, which requires careful analysis and explanations. One could attempt at three-word summaries of different philosophies/philosophers or at expressing a guiding life-maxim (like ‘always double check’ [why not tripple or multiple?]) but the problem is that philosophy invites dialogue, questioning one’s own thinking therefore requiring more that 73 characters. It may be that while literature often profits from brevity, philosophy might be ultimately harmed by it.