Crowe

So it wasn't really a riddle at all then (I mean it is, sort of, but it's meaning is not concrete at all, but merely a path to a rhetorical question with no conclusive answer). And it most certainly wasn't simple. So instead of trying to figure out what is true, and what sort of philosophical school of thought you should tackle this piece with... you can really boil it down to: this whole piece was a lie to begin with.

Secondly, I am not sure these are aphorisms. They aren't true aphorisms anyway. I was trying to think of an example of an aphorism, but I just woke up -- so let's look at some examples I pulled up:
"Science is organized knowledge"
"Lost time is never found again"
An aphorism by definition is a saying that expresses a general truth or an astute observation. Going back and looking at the first half of your piece...

The hand it shakes when ready
To write old words anew

What exactly is a truth that one could glean from this couplet? There is no general truth in this line. It's not quite an aphorism then is it? Then:

If my hand is always steady
Then are any of my thoughts untrue?

There is no observation, or general truth here. Whether the question is rhetorical or not -- it loses any chance of being an aphorism due to the fact that it is purely based on rhetorical, fantastical, situational, biological reaction.

Without the existence of an aphorism, it hardly becomes a paradox at all. You put forth the implied fact that a hand shaking is the hand of a liar. Then you instituted the fact that your hand never shakes, making you forever honest by the standards you put forth. The answer to the question of this "riddle" is - no, your thoughts are never untrue. If we go by the rules governing the piece.

Summary: The piece DOES have an answer. It is NOT a simple riddle. It is a riddle, whether you wanted it to be or not. The piece is, itself, a lie, without regard to it's content but to its intent.

I could go on... I'm pretty well versed in philosophy (the continued talk about paradoxical connotations between aphorisms is almost wholly incorrect, but I'm too tired to blab on about that)

__________________

Trauma

Yes, it was a riddle.
If it wasn't paradoxical then it would have been strictly rhetorical, but the fact that it is self-conflicting provides an answer to the question "What is truth?" (maybe not the most concrete riddle).

It is a perfect aphorism.
I respect the fact that you're trying to shut me down, but if you've read any of Francis Bacon's work then you'd see he does the same thing.
Obviously the first two lines of my poem aren't a recognized truth, they're my "astute observation"/personal experience.

This is not an aphorism, as I mentioned earlier.
This half of the poem is meant to conflict with the first half, to create a paradox.
It's a little hazy, but I meant for the paradox of the aphorism to parallel the paradox of truth being untruth.
The second aphorism would be the entire poem as a whole.
It would be my paradoxical observation that the question "What is truth?" answers "Truth is a lie."
I suppose the aphorism isn't really there because it's not a saying, it's just implied.
True, but that is not the answer to the question of the riddle, it goes a step further.
The answer/intent of the riddle is essentially a lie.
I was playing with the fact that truth is whatever our reality reveals to us and perhaps that reality is not truly truth at all.

There is no paradox between the individual aphorisms (if you can say that there are two), that would be incorrect, but I answered that earlier.

Thank you for responding again.

__________________
A mi no me importa nada
Para mi la vida es un sueño