• introbert
    333
    I have confessed that I have a fixation on the concept of irony. To me irony is a cheap and easy way, a fix, to exercise the part of my brain that seems to demand philosophical thought. My thoughts on irony extend to its nature as a form of argument, an antagonism, an object of confusion, an element of humor, a threat to objectivity, a method of subjectivism and more. Beyond these thoughts, I have sort of developed an idea that approaches grand (or master or meta) narrative. This idea situates me in a meaningful history when the historical context of my birth and the events that have unfolded in my life are all explained. At the end you will find this kind of idea ironic as it is contrary to an ironic worldview. Perplexing?

    The narrative of world and personal history goes like this: In the premodern period, it is said in the mythos of my heritage, that our monks saved the ancient works of early Western civilization at the fall of Rome preceding the Dark Ages. These works include those of Plato. My personal mythos is that these monks identified the nature of the irony present in Plato's work from the method of Socrates to the allegory of the cave, and the similarity of the words Eiron and Irony to the name, dominant ethos or characteristic of their own nation. As such the works survived rather than being destroyed. The preservation of these works eventually led to the Renaissance and Enlightenment and so on. The Enlightenment is strongly connected to the works of Rene Descartes who was associated with the House of Orange which became connected to both science as well as Protestantism (Calvinism). The latter of these two elements, according to Weber, was involved in the rationalization of society during the Modern period. They also featured in the history of the nation with the mythos of preserving the foundations of irony. This history is marked by a kind of unconventional irony of doing the opposite of what you would expect. Example: Your nation is cut off from supplies and reinforcements, a larger and more powerful nation with immense support from continental Europe is demanding you submit to them, yet you the definitive underdog, ironically, attack first.

    What can be said about this Modern period where rationalizations can be considered anti-ironic? They are composed of rationality, ethics, discipline, objectivity and a form of scientific truth, which to act or believe the opposite is ironic given the realist, positivist nature of the expectations. Rationalization has at times been imposed at a blistering pace as in industrialization, but at other times proceeded with a snail's pace such as with medical/ health rationality. Now that medical rationality has become more pervasive something like smoking cigarettes, which was at one time expected, has become a sort of ironic action given that the circumstances such as monetary cost and the importance of health set certain expectations. Rationalizations, such as this, led to a movement in philosophy called post-modernism which is distinctly ironic. There are various proofs of this contention, but the simplest is that the various pomo works each attempt to derail different elements of the project of modernity that so much expectation has been applied on people to develop. This is at the level of social institutions.

    So that is a very condensed summary for the purposes of quick communication of premodernism to postmodernism and the personal master-meta-grandnarrative I have ironically created to substantiate my own thoughts and actions, and to understand history as it has unfolded in the last millennia or so.
  • Tom Storm
    9.2k
    Interesting. Outside of examples, do you have a working definition (in a few sentences) for irony? Have you read Rorty's Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity?
  • introbert
    333
    Irony is the opposition in Platonic duality: essence opposed to object, idea from reality, person from society, cause from effect, etc. The dictionary definition uses the fulcrum of expectation because one part of the opposing pairs gives an idea that the other part should be congruent with as they are the same, but part of the dual nature. Socrates feigning ignorance is ironic for a few possible reasons: he positions himself as an underdog, he self-depreciates, and he gives an idea that is opposed to the reality or actuality. In each of these there is an opposing duality: the underdog has nature where he should not prevail but does, self-depreciation is idea-of-self opposed to self, and in giving an idea that is opposed to reality or actuality he does a dramatic irony where the audience knows Socrates is adept but his opponent does not, which is another opposition of person from society. All this is interesting, but I think irony is more fluid in definition rather than fixed given that is a metaphysical essence that is merely reflected in forms, which can be confusingly disparate.

    Rorty: Yes. I haven't thought much about his exact position on it, such as the implications of his interpretation of irony, but I think it is one of the fluid possibilities for it.
  • Gnomon
    3.8k
    I have confessed that I have a fixation on the concept of irony. To me irony is a cheap and easy way, a fix, to exercise the part of my brain that seems to demand philosophical thought. My thoughts on irony extend to its nature as a form of argument, an antagonism, an object of confusion, an element of humor, a threat to objectivity, a method of subjectivism and more.introbert
    In the iconoclastic 1960s, coming from a non-philosophical Modernist background, Postmodern irony just seemed annoying to me. For example, postmodern architecture tended to turn formerly pretentious buildings & monuments into play-toys. In general, Postmodernism seems to be intended to knock the props (logic & science) from under arrogant Modern reasoning, with withering Skepticism : ironically a key tool of the scientific method.

    This not a completely new innovation of PM though. Since antiquity, for some philosophers, an attitude of smirking irony was used to make them seem smarter than the gullible herds. The ancient antidote to that sophistry though was the Socratic method of questioning assumptions, including those of the skeptic. So now, I just smile knowingly at expressions of PM irony, and search my own opinions for signs of hauteur. :smile:

    Postmodern Irony :
    In their view, postmodernist irony is a form of blank parody, a cannibalization of old styles that is not inspired by a genuine historicism and ultimately turns cultural tradition into a set of dusty spectacles deprived of any value and unable to add meaning to the present.
    https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/encyclopedia-of-humor-studies/i7888.xml
  • 180 Proof
    15.4k
    As I discern it, p0m0 has been a parody of itself – humorless dada – since the 1960s. 'Socratic irony & Pyrrhonian doubt' have long been integral to modernism despite its many excesses & mis-appropriations (pace Horkheimer, Adorno, et al).
  • Paine
    2.5k
    Socrates feigning ignorance is ironic for a few possible reasons: he positions himself as an underdog, he self-depreciates, and he gives an idea that is opposed to the reality or actuality. In each of these there is an opposing duality:introbert

    The assumption that Socrates is faking the report of his being ignorant is one way to listen to the texts. It is interesting to read Theaetetus with this question in mind. Plato's later efforts seem directed toward getting past the limits of what was said in that dialogue. And yet that dialogue shows Plato working at his very best.

    What's up with that?
  • introbert
    333
    No idea, but
    yetPaine
    is often a signal word for something ironic I have found. Maybe that is, but it is past my bedtime.
  • Gregory
    4.7k


    It seems to me that post modernism has a faith in the beyond of reason and wants to escape this world, expecting to wake up in it once again. Old school Hegel believed in objective truth and had spiritual faith. PM doesn't like the idea of spiritual if it's connected to religion
  • introbert
    333
    Yes, spiritual/ metaphysical but in reference to modern objects. So Deleuze, for example will take the modern object of schizophrenia and boil down its essence to the truest state of being individual. That can probably be reduced more. Modernism aims to define 'the soul' in a way that the object becomes easy to identify, order, and control/ use. Modern objects are thus fundamentally unstable metaphysically as their soul is apprehended using rational methods. So going back to the example of individual::schizophrenia, the modern definition of the soul of the schizophrenic puts them in a group implying, for instance, they are all the same and they should be treated the same. To extract an individual essence proceeds the opposite.
  • Joshs
    5.8k
    So Deleuze, for example will take the modern object of schizophrenia and boil down its essence to the truest state of being individual. That can probably be reduced moreintrobert

    For Deleuze, all singularities are pre-individual. All singularities belong to multiplicities and cannot be understood outside of the assemblages to which they belong
  • Gregory
    4.7k




    Postmodernism does split intellect into its spheres. Objectivity and reason itself being singular are tightly bound to each other. To learn arithmetic creative intelligence is needed. Numbers are created and then analyzed by the mind. When you first learned 1 plus 1 is 2, you didn't simply find another 1 and that was it. A summation happened, which is a creation. This means intelligence is not a continuum but a principle, and the reality of truth is seen when intellect unites its various parts
  • introbert
    333
    Sounds like Deleuze, concepts are undefined, they do not exist in isolation and have to be understood contextually. I dont fully understand the depth of Deleuzian concepts actually, I have only an approximate understanding of what he says.
  • Gregory
    4.7k
    Consideration: absolutism is to relativity as soul is to body. This is proven perhaps by the fact that you can't find the absolute through the relative but you can find the relative through the absolute
  • Benj96
    2.3k
    Consideration: absolutism is to relativity as soul is to body. This is proven perhaps by the fact that you can't find the absolute through the relative but you can find the relative through the absoluteGregory

    Exactly. Only the ends of a spectrum, the poles (absolutes) , can observe the middleground (relativism) but the middle cannot see the ends.
  • introbert
    333
    Now that medical rationality has become more pervasive something like smoking cigarettes, which was at one time expected, has become a sort of ironic action given that the circumstances such as monetary cost and the importance of health set certain expectationsintrobert

    I just wanted to elaborate a little bit on this point. I use this as a simple to understand example of my perception of irony in action, which can be extrapolated easily to other things. In the example you have two opposing expectations, notice that they are opposing but not ironic. In the first expectation - to smoke - it is not really ironic to oppose. The expectation is weak. In the second expectation - not to smoke- there is scientific medical evidence that it hurts and kills you, there are signs everywhere that say not to smoke, rationalized people will tell you not to smoke around them, the price of cigarettes are artificially inflated so the financial cost is high, yet you smoke. The expectation is strong. So that can be one factor in irony, the degree that the expectation is justified. What does this have to do with rationalization? Rationalization is compelling on thought and behavior as its method of justification appeals to reason. To oppose it, as in irony, is irrational.
  • Gregory
    4.7k


    So reason is ironic? If so, is that the same as being oaradoxical?
  • introbert
    333
    Reason is not ironic, but to identify irony takes reason. However, there is a paradox: to reason something is ironic then proceed to do it, is irrational.

    This is not so paradoxical for ironic actions, but for discursive actions it is quite paradoxical as the reasoning can be quite advanced for the irrationality that results.
  • Gregory
    4.7k


    Following fate indeed can be a mistake. To be free someone should not be trapped by paradox
  • Tom Storm
    9.2k
    Do you have a basic description of irony in the postmodern context?
  • introbert
    333
    Is this allusion to predestination? Weber argued predestination was lost in the process of rationalization, however I think irony and determinism are directly at odds. It is a complex argument to make, I'll have to think about it a little before I attempt. If to be free people should not be trapped by paradox does not necessarily imply they should not be an Eiron, it is a sufficient argument against rationalization. This is because rationalization creates the condition, the set up, whereas irony is merely discordance with it.
  • introbert
    333
    The late Bruno Latour's Actor Network Theory supposedly originated from analysis of the "hotel room key". The key has a cumbersome object attached and this as well of a network of actants results, with reliable effect, of patrons returning their hotel room key to the front desk. Note that due to this network of actants, not returning the key is ironic.
  • Gregory
    4.7k


    Freedom implies faith in the face of paradox. Those who erase the paradoxes miss the point. Fate is a meaningless word most of the time
  • introbert
    333
    Maybe. Care to elaborate?
  • introbert
    333
    In the discursive way I think about irony my thoughts meander in various directions. One dimension is how there are the original examples of irony: the comic character, Socrates etc., and from these extract the metaphysical essence of irony. From there I consider analogical ironic forms that share the formulaic essence of irony, but are deviations from the original example. So if irony is a nonanalogy in a dualistic relation, then the analogy of disparate phenomena to the original ironic forms possesses an analogical irony in that what are not in a dualistic relation shares an ironic co-relation. 'This' is ironically like 'that'.
  • Gregory
    4.7k


    So you seem to be saying that there is substantial irony and accidental irony. Is there a Platonic Form for irony? Idn. I was wondering recently if change has a Form. Things change if the Forms shift, but what records the change itself. I guess it's just contingent. But this gets into questions of receptivity vs spontaneity. That we receive everything in life and yet are the creators of our lives is ironic and even beautiful. If philosophy no longer feels strange someone they probably aren't doing it correctly
  • introbert
    333
    I dont know if Platonic forms are anything, but my understanding of forms is that if something embodies it such as a comic character or Socrates the form must exist. I allude to the form of irony but my relating of irony to Platonic dualism is a kind of subtextual, synthetic understanding of the split between body and soul and the physical world and forms. In my view there are simply two distinct separate but related essences that are in opposition in irony. One is usually the idea you get from a set of circumstances and the other is some kind of opposing reality or actuality.
  • introbert
    333
    The analogical irony embodied in the conflictual relation of individual vs society is more complex. Using the example of socrates feigning ignorance he creates dramatic irony in that an audience 'knows' what his opponent does not. In the individual vs society, there is a difference between what the libertarian thinks and what the communitarians think. The shared knowkedge of the communitarians vs the induced ignorance of the individual creates one example of irony. The tie in to the template of irony is that the individual does the opposite of what the audience expects. Using the example of the audience that sees a murderer hide in the closet, yet he unsuspecting victim opens the door, the irony is possibly due to the expectation is based on the rational expectation of action based on knowledge. This is important as there are other possible expectations such as what will inevitably happen. It is still dramatic irony if the audience 'knew it' that the victim would open the closet. This fact that can be deduced from this form of irony verifies that the expectation is rational.
  • introbert
    333
    In the previous block of text there is a proof that the expectation in irony is rational. If the expectation is rational then the consequence is irrational. This is one thing that puts rationality and irony at odds, even though it takes reason to identify and to sometimes act and think ironically. Irony goes against the rational ordering of the world. Irony is opposed to what can be calculated, predicted and controlled. Furthermore, the formula for irony ex. Situation>expectation=opposite can be seen in contrast to a logical syllogism. The latter is for coming to a rational conclusion whereas the former is to reach an irrational one. This is not always against reason as it can be used as an argument against irrationality. So the statement that modernity is anti-irony is only so far as irony's ends are irrational.
  • introbert
    333
    So without refering to the particular Socratic irony that Hegel takes issue with as a subjective threat against objectivity: Socrates is the wisest, yet he knows nothing; another element opposed to objectivity is revealed. That is as objectivity is deindividuating, irony is manifestly individual detachment from collectivity as an analog of dramatic irony. This raises the question if the expectation in irony has to be rational? It is possibly a rule that the collective expectation is, but if pomo is schizo and pomo is ironic then schizo may also be ironic. Schizo expectations of impending disaster, paranoia, and delusional are irrational and lead to ironic action against social codes.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.