Lucid.

That quite simply encompasses this collection of aphorisms.

Reading this and La Rochefoucauld’s ‘Maxims’ subsequently does shine a new light on Nietzsche’s writings, as he was directly inspired by them. To me, this provides a genealogy of the aphorism, of sorts. It is interesting to see a strand of pessimism run though all three, especially if you take Schopenhauer (who was directly inspired by Gracián, too, I’m not sure about his knowledge of La Rochefoucauld) into account too. I’d have to reread him, but Macchiavelli comes to mind as an obvious precursor, if not progenitor (although, based on the afterword, Gracián did apparently not appreciate the comparison to Macchiavelli which was made in his own time already).

I don’t remember Macchiavelli as particularly aphoristic, but I do remember him writing in precepts, almost a ‘code of conduct’ kind of style. According to the afterword of this book, Machiavelli’s work is about power only. I’m not sure if I agree, but it serves as a helpful premise here.

Gracián takes a pessimistic perspective of the largest part of humanity as his premise, and then provides means to deal with that as best as possible from a ‘good’ position. So, it is not purely Machiavellian in the sense we usually describe to the term; amoral achievement of one’s own goals, in a purely self-serving manner. Gracián does take the well-being of others into account. He’s just convinced that others have no clue as to what is beneficial to their well-being, won’t be able to be taught, and so it is best to focus on your own, without damaging others (too much).

La Rochefoucauld seems to take the pessimism to its completion, with little care for the other. He’s simply not too concerned with the other anymore, except for the simple fact that they are nuisances that cannot be avoided, much like we will never be able to fully avoid mosquitoes. Just deal with them as best as possible, or even quash them, but don’t let them interfere in your own life.

Schopenhauer, then, gives a cynical, nigh humorous touch to these notions in his ‘The Wisdom of Life’, which is a segment of ‘Parerga and Paralipomena’. Of course, in his magnum opus ‘The World as Will and Representation’ he takes this pessimism so far as to negate life, to posit that life is nothing more but suffering and the best answer to that is to quit as soon as possible, or rather to have never been born at all. But in ‘The Wisdom of Life’ he takes the premise, quite cynically humorous in itself, in the context of his magnum opus, that if, and only if, life would be worth living, how then to live it? This is both an extremity of the former positions, as they have never explicitly denied the value of life, and, in other ways, a conversion. His precursors were, mostly, dead serious, solemn. Schopenhauer, however, is humorous, ironic, cynical.

Nietzsche, finally, shows great admiration for the sagacity of all these figures (perhaps with the exception of Macchiavelli, I don’t remember how Nietzsche writes about him — some sense of criticism remains, though). But, he was the only person of this list in the position to read Schopenhauer, who might have taken this pessimistic strand to its extremes. Nietzsche saw that this was not conducive to life, and decided to turn it around. But, he was still convinced of this basic pessimistic life stance. This, then, might have been the basis for what is deemed to be one of his major philosophical projects.

The affirmation of life, in the face of not only Schopenhauer’s negation of life, but the realistic pessimism of Macchiavelli, Gracián and La Rochefoucauld.

Affirming life viz á viz a negation of life is relatively easy. You just say ‘yes!’, rather than ‘no’, and argue for that. But if you take the pessimistic stance to be realistic; if you take serious that most people are indeed maybe not actively bad, but at least passively not good; and we are indeed dependent on other people; and the good people we could depend on, are still dependent on bad people too; and all of that is central to life, or at least human life; then how do you reconcile that pessimism with an affirmation of life?

Now, to add to all of this theoretical, academic, intellectual structuring a more experiential nuance; these writings, attempting to encompass everything on very specific subjects, do seem rather stark at times. Although I believe they might apply to the majority of situations within the context Gracián focusses on, that of high functionary positions, those situations we might call professional, I doubt taking these rules as fact would help you more, than they would hurt you.

But then again, that is the great paradox of aphorisms. Taking anything for a fact in the question of life usually, in the end, hurts you more than it helps you. Perhaps that is exactly why aphorisms often seem to be oddly singular about both ends of a spectrum; to concede to the fact that life is never either/or.

A very accessible set of entries from Baltasar Gracian as to ways to improve your standing, perspectives and knowledge and overall outlook on life. It is easy to read and understand which is vital to taking lessons from the book.
Very much recommended if you enjoy the works of Jordan Peterson or Robert Greene as you can clearly see the influence Gracian had on their works.
It is simply short entries on what Baltasar's perspective is. There are no personal anecdotes or references to religion as in Peterson's book, or historic examples as see in the 50 Laws of Power making it both a shorter read and possibly relatable to a wider audience.

To some degree in the lineage of Aurelius' "Meditations" and Machiavelli's "The Prince," this work is a collection of 300 aphorisms that deliver advice on dealing with others, whether truthfully or through artifice. Being as this is a 17th century work and several of the 300 are repetitive in nature, I find "aphorism" to be misleading. I would be more apt to call them maxims. But, that's semantics. Unfortunately, this is more of a handbook or field guide to life in becoming and/or controlling your own being. It's not really a book to be read end-to-end and then shelved. Still, it meanders and while some of the text is apropos, some is dated. It's worth a glance, but I wouldn't try to pattern my life after it.

It is "The Prince" with a conscience.

One of the best books about, for lack of a better expression, how life and the world work, the importance of image and perception and being smart in general.
Centuries later we see people, society and their perception and judgment didn't really change that much at all.
Better yet it's written, how can I say, positively, without the cynicism of say, The Prince or other books who try to do the same.

Excellent. Aphoristic, brief, witty, often contradictory, but in a good way. Where the aphorisms run against one another, they actually allow themselves to be applied situationally--which is one of the nice things about aphorisms, really. There is no one system, and aphorisms allow you to weave in and out of the different systems, styles, ways of being, etc. This is one of my favorite books of all time. It is so, so clever, and yet also morally good.

I wanted very much to read Gracián’s [b:El Criticón|709893|El Criticón|Baltasar Gracián|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1333589715s/709893.jpg|696161], but the only English translation is a dreadfully archaic one from the 17th century. So I decided on this small handbook of 300 paragraph-long aphorisms. Very soon, my disappointment turned to distaste as I found myself assaulted by an alternation between vapid one-liners -- in some cases, old clichés -- and cynical musings couched in the cheerful and self-indulgent language of virtue.

Each paragraph contained a string of one-sentence aphorisms that give the appearance of world-weary wisdom to mask their overgeneralization. Some were so astonishingly manipulative that I felt I were reading a handbook for sociopaths. I struggled through to the end, reading a few per day. Normally I read books of aphorisms slowly in order to savor each one. I read this book slowly because it was such a painful experience. Although I also picked up Gracián’s [b:A Pocket Mirror for Heroes|1344398|A Pocket Mirror for Heroes|Baltasar Gracián|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1320412206s/1344398.jpg|1333998] at the library, I feel like cleansing my mind by reading something else before moving on to that one.

A self help classic. Pithy and truthful. Since most books of this genre emphasize similar themes, one might as well read a volume written with class and style.

This is literally just Baroque fortune cookies. And that's what makes it so entertaining, but also so vacuous. It was produced as literally a "pocket oracle"—a tiny book you pull out of your pocket, flip to a page at random, and take that advice for what it's worth. Hence, if you read it all the way though as a modern edition, it's endlessly contradictory and frustrating. It's aphoristic, not systematic! That's a genre!

Basically, this has nothing meaningful to say about morality, but it's a fun puzzle game. Barroco típico.