Phrases. Philosofic phrases. Dissected texts that in their breakdown make a common place. Philosophy against common sense however is presented in the stripped repetition of massive phrases. Phrases remembered by all that seem to betray the philosophical problematization: or is it not a phrase almost a jingle, a label, a sugar packet, a tweet? And isn't philosophy exactly the opposite of what favors a format, a rhythm, an aesthetic experience?
Is not philosophy intended to destabilize all comfort, all well-being, all immediate understanding? Isn't it an emancipatory practice that breaks down all industrialization of thought? And aren't philosophical phrases, in their format, pure industry?
Yes and no. It is clear that staying only with the phrase absolutely lacks critical wager. But what would it be to stay with the phrase?
Reduce all Cartesian thought to "I think, therefore I am", or the Nietzschean to "God is dead"? And what would reduce? Suppose that these and other thinkers only held the odd idea and not get involved in a more extensive development of the rest of their work? It is clear that any reduction is opposed to the philosophical attempt to open up the concepts and generate diverse routes, but in that sense, wouldn't there also be reductionism when a class gives up the philosophical event in pursuit of the repetition of names, appointments, dates, or of the dexterity in finding the comment of the comment of the comment?
Again, what does it mean to stay? We do not believe that the problem is hermeneutical, that is, about how to interpret each phrase, but rather to create the conditions so that each phrase enables a multiplicity of diverse interpretations. The problem with the phrase is that it closes the opportunity for questioning, in the same way as a naturalized concept closes us in our social device, or as there are areas of existence that we suppose are not worth questioning, or as when we assume as own the ideas, practices and values that others need us to create.

It is true that the elaboration of a list of the most well-known philosophical phrases in history seems to be reproducing the same thing that philosophy is supposed to question. Not so much in its content but in its forms: how much is available in the need for lists to order life, or how subjectivity is incorporating hierarchies, competencies, efficiencies. It is never the content of that list that matters, be it phrases, songs, soccer players, birthday wishes, or names of loves, but rather that there are lists, the general "list" of existence. Afterwards, it does not matter what we fill them with as long as the contour is not visible and especially as long as it is not visible that this contour is one more and that there could be others that have very different orders.