Also I think it's changing the context changes the perspective, not changing the perspective changes the context.

Ironically, this David Moore doesn't know what irony is.

I have many arguments in this forum as to whether humans are categorically different to other animals. Most say they’re not, but ironically that’s something only a human could say.

I have many arguments in this forum as to whether humans are categorically different to other animals. Most say they’re not, but ironically that’s something only a human could say. — Wayfarer

I guess I’m just wondering if what he means is accurate or not, or just nuts.

The part about irony not being able to be defined according to him kinda undermines his point. How can you call something that you can’t define? Unless he means irony not being able to be defined would apply to all words then thus render meaning useless.

Or am I just severely overthinking it.

Ironically, this David Moore doesn't know what irony is. — DifferentiatingEgg

Probably not, but I'm easily influenced. Though I did come across this while reading up on irony: https://cdn.theatlantic.com/media/archives/1913/03/111-3/132217691.pdf

Though to be honest I think the word he's looking for is relative not ironic, ironic means the opposite of what is intended or expected, not different. Though you could make a argument for it being different not being what you expected and therefor opposite, but that seems kinda weak to me.

I'd also argue if everything is ironic nothing is, though according to him irony is not ironic:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-irony/answer/David-Moore-408

Though the more I read the more it just sounds like his personal takes with some references to Wittgenstein.

Or am I just severely overthinking — Darkneos

No, I think you’re on the right track. It’s a little like humor or explaining a joke - if you have to explain why a joke is funny then it’s not funny. And there are those - this includes a particular type of American - on whom ‘irony is lost’, who can’t see the irony of something. In which cases it’s pointless to try and explain why it’s ironic.

I suppose that both irony and a humor (at least not slapstick humor) both rely on cognitive dissonance, a kind of double meaning, a mismatch between what was expected and what actually happened.

No, I think you’re on the right track. It’s a little like humor or explaining a joke - if you have to explain why a joke is funny then it’s not funny. And there are those - this includes a particular type of American - on whom ‘irony is lost’, who can’t see the irony of something. In which cases it’s pointless to try and explain why it’s ironic.

I suppose that both irony and a humor (at least not slapstick humor) both rely on cognitive dissonance, a kind of double meaning, a mismatch between what was expected and what actually happened. — Wayfarer

I don’t think you got what I meant by my reply. Ironic means the opposite happening of what’s intended, but he’s saying you can’t define what it is.

And I’m saying if that inability to define it is making the same point about all words that we use, since context can change the meaning of things.

Even still I would only call changing the context or perspective meaning things are relative, not ironic. Ironic implies contradiction, there is also intent and expectation involved in irony.

Though I guess if you expect nothing then nothing is ironic…maybe…

Maybe irony is relative. Either way that’s not really what I’m asking about what David is saying.

From the article ‘the most potent examples of irony emerge from scenarios in which objects and the expected meaning in their context appear perpendicular to the more immediate meaning of that context.’

It’s pretty close to what I said.

From the article ‘the most potent examples of irony emerge from scenarios in which objects and the expected meaning in their context appear perpendicular to the more immediate meaning of that context.’

It’s pretty close to what I said. — Wayfarer

But what you said isn't what I'm getting at what I think he means by irony.

Especially in light of some other stuff he has posted: https://www.quora.com/What-is-semantic-despair/answer/David-Moore-408?srid=hp09y
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-we-attribute-meaning-to-things/answer/David-Moore-408
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-ugly-truths-of-life/answer/David-Moore-408
https://www.quora.com/What-makes-you-wrong/answer/David-Moore-408
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-truth-about-everything/answer/David-Moore-408

That's what I mean by him suggesting that if irony can't be defined then that would apply to all words that we use thus rendering meaning invalid.

Also he has this weird pop track listed too:

https://soundcloud.com/mooretrumpet-1/sets/continuous-discretion

Not sure what this line means:

"The Logic of Mathematics and the Imaginative and Creative Process by which we Make Sense by Rendering the Continuous Discretely and Producing Continuity from the Discrete"

AT first it reminds me of process philosophy but who knows what he's thinking. Maybe I'm trying to make sense of nonsense and I feel like that's playing into his hands. Like deliberately making nonsense to prove a point.

Ugh, who knows.

whether humans are categorically different to other animals. Most say they’re not, but ironically that’s something only a human could say. — Wayfarer

Ironically, both are something only a human could say... or, does that negate the irony?

Ironically, both are something only a human could say... or, does that negate the irony? — ENOAH

Who knows, I’m still trying to work out what the dude means and if it’s just a bit about our attempts to make sense of things.

if it’s just a bit about our attempts to make sense of things — Darkneos

Ironically, we might just end up confounding things.

Ironically, we might just end up confounding things. — ENOAH

I'm not sure what you mean.

The other thing I’m thinking about is how he might be saying we live in a fantasy world and not reality because we made all the concepts and ideas used to describe it that only make sense to us because we made it up, even meaning.

Reminds me of this: https://youtu.be/vPS5Yw_YsHA?si=HElsCrPjpMUYxSiY

They are simply words that remind us that there is no ultimate metalanguage that serves to describe language. It is the same with the word "metaphor". You define it in a non-metaphorical sense and there is a contradiction in what it is to speak metaphorically and to define metaphor, that is, you betray its meaning. This implies that there is no metalanguage of definitions valid for all cases. Moreover, when we believe we have a metalanguage we use it as any other way of speaking that you can also define in another metalanguage of a higher order; and so on ad infinitum. That is, there is no ultimate metalanguage from which to define all aspects (or being) of language.

They are simply words that remind us that there is no ultimate metalanguage that serves to describe language. It is the same with the word "metaphor". You define it in a non-metaphorical sense and there is a contradiction in what it is to speak metaphorically and to define metaphor, that is, you betray its meaning. This implies that there is no metalanguage of definitions valid for all cases. Moreover, when we believe we have a metalanguage we use it as any other way of speaking that you can also define in another metalanguage of a higher order; and so on ad infinitum. That is, there is no ultimate metalanguage from which to define all aspects (or being) of language. — JuanZu

Ummm, in English? I think we can define metaphor with betraying the meaning, otherwise you couldn't use it. There also is no contradiction in defining metaphor and speaking in that way same with irony. Really don't know where people get that one from.

Or does it mean language is fluid, which also isn't news. Words have different meanings based on the time period and the context they're used in.

Do you mean there is no objective language in the universe?

Not really sure what you're getting at.

I think dude in Quora is expressing a point that makes enough sense, but I wouldn't put it in the terms of "everything is ironic" on a philosophy board.

Plato, I think, expresses an ironic attitude towards life; given the nature of the dialogues we can't say it was his intent or whatever, but Plato almost invented the notion of irony with his dialogues.

But he did so on the background of a universal desire for truth, at least. Even his allegories can be read ironically, as poetic testaments to a feeling of communing with the forms.

But, and this is what is so delicious about Plato, this interpretation will remain ironic in the technical sense -- that it's unexpected, a step removed, and itself will have contenders that bring about a deeper meaning without settling the question of irony or the question of the essay.

Everything isn't irony because most things don't end in aporia or comedy.

Everything isn't irony because most things don't end in aporia or comedy. — Moliere

Well he seems to think differently, though in my view if irony is based on expectation then nothing is ironic if you have no expectations.

That's why I'm thinking he's meaning relative or subjective, not ironic.

Though given his other content I've linked I can't really say for sure either way.

Almost reminds me of nihilism and the making of meaning and how I thought we lived a fantasy world of our own creation by pretending all these things matter and are so important, well...at least this bit did:

"The Logic of Mathematics and the Imaginative and Creative Process by which we Make Sense by Rendering the Continuous Discretely and Producing Continuity from the Discrete" — Darkneos

Though I'm not really sure Math says that.

I'm not sure what you mean. — Darkneos

We do not focus on the truth we already know. "Irony" like most things surfacing through minds as culture or history, is not a definite singular thing. It represents first an organic feeling best left not displaced by signifiers. But inevitably minds come up with "irony" [for the feeling triggered when facts reveal themselves to be fictions and vice versa]. And its definition is already impossible because it is not the unnamable feeling, but the construction for it in code. But because it is constructed we give to it also constructed meanings. If conventionally accepted within a range of functional applications of that signifier, then we settle upon that as "definition." Fair enough. A reasonably necessarily dialectic for "irony" to function as code.

But then philosophy (also first an unamable feeling, stretched by Mind into [a] near infinite structure of signifiers, requiring extra lengthy narratives to arrive at the feeling [akin to discovery]) comes along and takes the dialectic beyond the reasonable conventional one designed to give the Signifier some signifieds, the construction of meaning [out of feeling]; but to a place which is clearly more fictional, a game claiming to be uncovering the core of truth.

What does it mean to say "everything is ironic", or "relative?" We claim to be making sense of it, but, ironically we're
confounding it further.

EDIT: not sure how tge erasure got there, but who knows? Maybe they were meant to be.

We do not focus on the truth we already know. "Irony" like most things surfacing through minds as culture or history, is not a definite singular thing. It represents first an organic feeling best left not displaced by signifiers. But inevitably minds come up with "irony" [for the feeling triggered when facts reveal themselves to be fictions and vice versa]. And its definition is already impossible because it is not the unnamable feeling, but the construction for it in code. But because it is constructed we give to it also constructed meanings. If conventionally accepted within a range of functional applications of that signifier, then we settle upon that as "definition." Fair enough. A reasonably necessarily dialectic for "irony" to function as code. — ENOAH

That made even less sense then your original comment. Irony isn't a feeling, it's something we can define and point out. It's not impossible to define. I mean...all meanings are constructed since we made up words to understand and navigate reality.

Philosophy isn't a feeling so much as a system or method.

But then philosophy (also first an unamable feeling, stretched by Mind into [a] near infinite structure of signifiers, requiring extra lengthy narratives to arrive at the feeling [akin to discovery]) comes along and takes the dialectic beyond the reasonable conventional one designed to give the Signifier some signifieds, the construction of meaning [out of feeling]; but to a place which is clearly more fictional, a game claiming to be uncovering the core of truth. — ENOAH

This was what I expected you to say given the last response but it's an empty statement. We made the rules so how can we say to uncover truth in a system we made up? *yawn* Interesting point, but then it begs the question of why even post that or reply to me to begin with?

Well if nothing was true or "made sense" I doubt we'd be on computers talking about it.

Maybe there is no clear answer. Either way a rather dull response.

What does it mean to say "everything is ironic", or "relative?" We claim to be making sense of it, but, ironically we're
confounding it further. — ENOAH

I think it does make sense but some people like to insist otherwise, so far no one has been able to show you can't define it.

But if things didn't make sense you'd never be able to argue the point about whether they do.

Well he seems to think differently, though in my view if irony is based on expectation then nothing is ironic if you have no expectations.

That's why I'm thinking he's meaning relative or subjective, not ironic. — Darkneos

Does anyone have no expectations? Is that a good basis for understanding irony at all?

I can't say what David Moore means.

I don't take Quora seriously, to be honest. I participated a for a small time there in answering labor questions and saw how it's basically a social media game.

I don't think that irony is relativism, though. I'd go back to Plato to define Irony ostensively.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1635/1635-h/1635-h.htm

Ion is a great dialogue for defining irony; it ends in an aporia that makes Ion the butt of the joke, and it doesn't explain that throughout. You have to "get it"

I don't think irony is based on a lack of expectations, though if you're a dullard without any expectations I could see how irony is lost on a person.

I don't take Quora seriously, to be honest. I participated a for a small time there in answering labor questions and saw how it's basically a social media game. — Moliere

Yeah, by now I should know better than to go there. Even just looking at his profile raises some red flags to be honest.

I don't think irony is based on a lack of expectations, though if you're a dullard without any expectations I could see how irony is lost on a person. — Moliere

Then you likely wouldn't get along with many Zen monks then.

I'm not saying irony is relativism, I'm saying that in the original post by David I think he's meaning relative instead of ironic. Saying that anything can be made ironic isn't technically true, things change meaning based on context. So that would make things relative, not ironic.

why even post that or reply to me to begin with? — Darkneos

To cut to the chase, I/we can't help it. It's autonomous.

Philosophy isn't a feeling so much as a system or method. — Darkneos

think it does make sense but some people like to insist otherwise, so far no one has been able to show you can't define it. — Darkneos

If you take the position that Irony (for example) has a definition, why not stop at the dictionary definition?

The exploration further, call it philosophy, is a desire to build meaning. That desire is rooted in a positive feeling. We may not perceive that root feeling on the surface, so overcrowded with layers of constructions, but at the root is an unnable positive feeling. That is what I said was the first movement in philosophy.

Of course it's [grown into] a system etc. But everything beyond whatever that positive feeling is--the feeling both our bodies are after by, for lack, "discovery"--is making-up meaning.

In the end some of us produce functional new paths, some don't, but we're all making meaning to attach to organic feelings. So ultimately we're confounding any path to that once real feeling, with making sense.

To cut to the chase, I/we can't help it. It's autonomous. — ENOAH

It's not and that doesn't answer the question.

The exploration further, call it philosophy, is a desire to build meaning. That desire is rooted in a positive feeling. We may not perceive that root feeling on the surface, so overcrowded with layers of constructions, but at the root is an unnable positive feeling. That is what I said was the first movement in philosophy. — ENOAH

But that's not what it is at the root, it's not a positive feeling. Also unnable isn't a word. It's not even the first movement. The first movement is making meaning, that's just what we do as humans. Meaning making is automatic, we do it like that.

Of course it's [grown into] a system etc. But everything beyond whatever that positive feeling is--the feeling both our bodies are after by, for lack, "discovery"--is making-up meaning. — ENOAH

You have it backwards. The feeling comes after all that. Discovery is partly making up meaning, it's also incorporating new information.

In the end some of us produce functional new paths, some don't, but we're all making meaning to attach to organic feelings. So ultimately we're confounding any path to that once real feeling, with making sense. — ENOAH

Except that's not what's happening. There is no "ultimately" and we aren't confounding any path, nothing is getting mixed up or confused here. The feelings and the ideas are in tandem, not one preceding the other.

It really just sounds like you don't know. We aren't attaching meaning to feelings, the feelings arise as we attach meaning. It's one in the same.

I can't say what David Moore means. — Moliere

Me either, the irony stuff in that post sounds more like the Buddhist idea of dependent arising, especially the part about taking sadness to know what happiness is, noise to appreciate silence and absence to value presence. Though I think that might be debatable.

I think the better notion is how much we often take for granted in our lives that we don't really appreciate certain things. Something like too much of a good thing or other.

But yeah, that sounds more like dependent arising in Buddhism, not really irony.

Thank you/Sorry.

Thank you/Sorry. — ENOAH

Uhhh...ok...

Uhhh...ok... — Darkneos

I meant both sincerely. Thanks for the interesting take. Sorry if I was frustratingly unclear. But for me, all good. How could I really know? So obviously I've grown a little from this. I'm ready to move on.

I don't think I've left you hanging, right?