Abstract

Richard Rorty speaks of “we ironists” who use irony as the primary tool in their scholarly work and life. We cannot approach irony in terms of truth, simply because, due to its ironies, the context no longer is metaphysical. This is Rorty’s challenge. Rorty’s promise focuses on top English Departments: they are hegemonic, they rule over the humanities, philosophy, and some social sciences using their superior method of ironizing dialectic. I refer to Hegel, Gerald Doherty’s “pornographic” writings, and Gore Vidal’s non-academic critique of academic literary criticism. My conclusion is that extensive use of irony is costly; an ironist must regulate her relevant ideas and speech acts—Hegel makes this clear. Irony is essentially confusing and contestable. Why would we want to use irony in a way that trumps metaphysics? Metaphysics, as defined by Rorty, is a problematic field, but irony can hardly replace it. At the same time, I admit that universal irony is possible, that is, everything can be seen in ironic light, or ironized. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate and criticize Rorty’s idea of irony by using his own methodology, that is, ironic redescription. We can see the shallowness of his approach to irony by contextualizing it. This also dictates the style of the essay.

Highlights

  • My conclusion is that extensive use of irony is costly; an ironist must regulate her relevant ideas and speech acts—Hegel makes this clear

  • I admit that universal irony is possible, that is, everything can be seen in ironic light, or ironized

  • Richard Rorty uses irony as a rhetorical tool and linguistic trope that serves his plans, this study deals with the ironists’ fortunes. They are existentially committed to irony and ironic attitudes—unlike an innocent user of occasional ironic speech acts. Their identity depends on their ironic attitude to life and social reality—they are ironists, or perhaps they use sarcasm so extensively that they look like skeptics, cynics, and nihilists

Read more

Summary

Modes and Methods of Irony and Sarcasm

We must distinguish between irony as a mode of being and a method. An ironist like. Richard Rorty uses irony as a rhetorical tool and linguistic trope that serves his plans, this study deals with the ironists’ fortunes. They are existentially committed to irony and ironic attitudes—unlike an innocent user of occasional ironic speech acts Their identity depends on their ironic attitude to life and social reality—they are ironists, or perhaps they use sarcasm so extensively that they look like skeptics, cynics, and nihilists.. Certain people loathe irony and its related tropes and try to avoid the company of ironists They still think in terms of truth, reality, and valid inference, and they want veridical evidence that supports their deliberations. Irony is a linguistic method, trope, and style, as well as an independent approach to the world and reality that it recreates In this case, irony is not a miserable little verbal trick that may save the innocent speaker against an otherwise superior enemy; as such, it looks like a minor communicative vice—which is an ironic point about irony. But sarcasm breaks life and what value language talks about (Airaksinen 2020a, 2020b)

Rorty and the Policy of Universal Irony
The Costs of Irony
Postscript
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call