If you’re quoting John Kerry, it’s “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”
Yes, there is: it’s short. Also, it’s easy to remember and it sounds good. I can see why it’s popular, but I can’t say it strikes me as very deep.
My personal un-favorite is any quote that begins “There are only two kinds of people in the world…” My own version is “There are only two kinds of people in the world: people who think there are only two kinds of people in the world, and people who aren’t idiots.”
I don’t know about your strange country, but we had the hokey pokey :dubious:
I love this, “There a 10 types of people in the world, those that understand binary and those that don’t.”… now that’s a quote that proves itself true! (“that’s only 2 people moron!”)
The one I really hate is, “It’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven.” WTF? Did anyone not notice this made no sense? It’s been a misquote for centuries. The real quote is, “it’s easier for a rope to pass through the eye of a needle…” Now there’s a quote that kinda makes sense.
Poetry doesn’t lend itself well to “cold reflection.” It’s about human beings and our emotions and how we relate to the world. This is not the logical expression “TRUTH = BEAUTY,” it’s a line of poetry. You also have to take into account that it’s the work of a romantic poet, and romantic poets are given to hyperbole and swooning and focusing on the ideal rather than the practical, and whatnot. And most importantly, you have to recognize that this is not the whole poem.
I suggest a compromise: Taken out of context, and interpreted literally, it is indeed, obviously meaningless. Perhaps some people are ignorant of its origin and repeat it because they think it’s literally true or because they think it makes them look smart to quote it because it sounds all high-falutin’ and fancy, and it’s all well and good to look down your nose at people who do this.
However, part of cultural literacy is supposed to be that a quote from a famous poem should just be a touchstone remind you of a larger poetic work. This is why they make you read all this junk in high school. You’re not supposed to think, “TAUTOLOGY! TAUTOLOGY! FALSE STATEMENT! TRUTH CAN BE UGLY! DOES NOT COMPUTE! FALSE STATEMENT! THIS IS NOT ALL YOU NEED KNOW!” You’re supposed to think, “Ah, yes, ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn,’” or at least, “Isn’t that Shakespeare or something?” If you are inclined to investigate further, perhaps you could Google and get a little more context:
I interpret this to mean that when you behold a thing of beauty, it can, at least for a moment, open a window to the truth, and become, for a moment, the only truth that matters. That the experience of beauty allows human beings to have an experience of the truth in a manner that may not be acheivable by intellectual effort. Conversely, I also read into it that sometimes apprehending a great truth will give one an experience of beauty, as Shade says. Keats seems to be emphasizing that understanding a great truth and beholding something beautiful can give you the same feeling.
I see something profound in that. You are, of course, free to disagree. Maybe it is nothing but a crock.
Or perhaps Keats is taking a more subversive approach here and actually decrying those who deem truth = beauty, and that’s all they need to know. It’s just an urn, after all, and really what does it know? Basically what he said it does.
Although, in all honesty, this was before he adopted the thundering, condescending droning that passes for his voice. Back then it was a much more subdued Northeastern faux-British accent.
Time to start looking for something else. (it was due for a change anyway)
It’s all in how you read it.