The article tortures its subject, while never really defining irony.
If we go by the dictionary, we see that regular people are using irony quite well:
(1) the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
That's a hipster wearing a hillbilly stgan t-shirt ironically, or someone lauding Epstein as a paragon of virtue, and so on. This kind is well undestood and people usually don't argue over its semantics.
(2) a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result.
This is the kind of irony the article is preoccupied with.
The key, I think, is the situation being "wryly amusing".
I'd say that this kind of irony involves some kind of a "cosmic joke" (a kind of soft or heavier prank the universe plays on you/us). Not literally of course: it's just how it feels.
This definition fits the dictionary definition (2) above, and the article cases, like the diabetic going for his meds and being run over by a sugar (or insulin, even better) truck.
And, let's say that contrary to popular "de-bunking", finding a trove of spoons when you're just looking for a knife (as in Alanis' lyrics), qualifies. As does "winning the lottery and diying the next day" or "a death row pardon two minutes too late" (also lyrics from the same song).
A lot of the semantic arguments against cases of (2) is mostly people expecting irony to always involve an element of (1), or to be necessarily much more than "wryly" amusing case of (2).
Try defining humor. You can write a book about it and it would still be missing the point. Since irony is part of humor, any attempt to define it is probably similarly problematic. So my advice would be to either let it rest, or to be prepared for some unsatisfactory conclusions.
I disagree. At least for me the 'wryly amusing' needs the events to be connected. Like death row pardon just too late doesn't do that for me. Death row pardon too late because you were on death row for killing Telefon operator 'Speedy' does it.
Winning lottery and dying in your newly bought racing car, ok. Just dying, I do not see the irony.
But it might just be me, and probably as with taste one cannot really discuss that.
So I thank you for sharing your thoughts because what you stated gave me pause: I agree with you in part, felt your conclusions are linked in a way, but it's clear that I have a long way to go to understand the topic.
That said, and from the article, "Coincidences involve juxtaposition and incongruity, but they aren’t counterfactual and don’t involve pretense." The syntax/logic statements in this sentence make my head spin :(
Beyond the book linked, if anyone has further suggestions on readings on Irony please share. Thank you.
You could almost call it _ironic_ that an article identifying a general failure to satisfactorily explain irony, itself fails to satisfactorily explain irony... ;)
An interesting read, I still often have trouble discerning what irony is supposed to be versus the colloquial use.
So I'll pose this as a question to the community: About halfway down the article there was a link (for me) to "What Nihilism is Not" with a description "In order to preserve nihilism as a meaningful concept, it’s necessary to distinguish it from pessimism, cynicism, and apathy." Is it ironic that in an article about irony there is a link to an article on a philosophy premised on the meaninglessness of life that intends to preserve its meaningfulness?
Is it ironic that in an article about irony there
is a link to an article on a philosophy premised on
the meaninglessness of life that intends to preserve
its meaningfulness?
It's kind of funny, bordering on ironic I suppose.
Irony is generally understood to involve an outcome that is contrary to expectations.
It has been said that the textbook example of irony would be the bullet that nearly killed Ronald Reagan. The bullet initially missed him, but riccocheted off the bulletproof glass of his limo -- the thing meant to save him from bullets! -- and then struck him. In fact, it actually contributed greatly to his near-death: because the shooter never had a clear shot at Reagan, the initial assumption was that he had not been shot, and had simply hurt his ribs when being shoved into the car by his bodyguards following the shooting. Had he instead been shot directly, there would have been no such confusion or delay.
Does an article about the meaningfulness of nihilism run contrary to expectations? If it was written by a nihilist, perhaps! If it was written by a non-nihilist, I'd say no -- it would not be unexpected for others to assign meaningfulness to a philosophy that has had some impact on the world, even if those who subscribe to the philosophy maintain that there is no meaning in things.
Well, I have given the Nihilism "meaninglessness" bit some thought and see no problem with it. So...no, not ironic at all?
The bit many people seem to skip over is that Nihilism's "meaninglessness" is in the context of long time frames.
So, actions have a timeframe of impact, with varying - but not infinite - length.
Knowing this, you can ascribe more relevant meaning to your actions, and hence better decide which actions to take.
It can also let you put past actions you regret into perspective. You will still regret those actions, but those actions, and associated regret, come with a timeframe.
Do you find it ironic? That's pretty much the only thing that matters because irony is colloquial. Every textbook definition of "irony" that I can find includes a human observer in judgement of the situation - the universe has no intrinsic concept of irony, only humans with expectations and a sense of humor do.
> > Irony” is a term that everyone uses and seems to understand. It is also a concept that is notoriously difficult to define.
In information terms, the "understand" in that sentence is a false positive.
Q: Do you know what I mean?
A: Yes.
The response above is not a verification. To be valid as a verification, the response would have to contain a restatement of the proposition, ideally in different terms that have the same meaning.
e.g.
A: You are saying that when someone claims to understand something, they have to demonstrate that understanding by regurgitating the meaning they have in mind, so as to make their understanding transparent and verifiable.
> Thus they will often say things with implicit meanings that are contrary to their literal meanings — aka irony — that go right over American heads.
An interesting counterpoint would be that although Japanese communication is extremely high-context, they don't grasp the concept of sarcasm at all. This leads to situations like this
The right wing / conservative people in my country frequently call their political opponents "lemmings", to imply they're deluded, misinformed and mindlessly rushing towards their deaths.
The mass suicide of lemmings is a myth. The most notable perpetuator is Disney, which in a 1958 documentary movie "White Wilderness" staged a "suicide" scene, complete with pushing lemmings off a cliff. There were more cases of involving Disney.
So whenever right winged/conservative describe people with opposing views as "lemmings", they accuse them of being misinformed yet are proving themselves to be misinformed.
To top it off, the "documentary" movie won an Academy Award, which is also itself ironic, because misinformation has been rewarded as educational.
[+] [-] coldtea|4 years ago|reply
If we go by the dictionary, we see that regular people are using irony quite well:
(1) the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
That's a hipster wearing a hillbilly stgan t-shirt ironically, or someone lauding Epstein as a paragon of virtue, and so on. This kind is well undestood and people usually don't argue over its semantics.
(2) a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result.
This is the kind of irony the article is preoccupied with.
The key, I think, is the situation being "wryly amusing".
I'd say that this kind of irony involves some kind of a "cosmic joke" (a kind of soft or heavier prank the universe plays on you/us). Not literally of course: it's just how it feels.
This definition fits the dictionary definition (2) above, and the article cases, like the diabetic going for his meds and being run over by a sugar (or insulin, even better) truck.
And, let's say that contrary to popular "de-bunking", finding a trove of spoons when you're just looking for a knife (as in Alanis' lyrics), qualifies. As does "winning the lottery and diying the next day" or "a death row pardon two minutes too late" (also lyrics from the same song).
A lot of the semantic arguments against cases of (2) is mostly people expecting irony to always involve an element of (1), or to be necessarily much more than "wryly" amusing case of (2).
[+] [-] amelius|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andi999|4 years ago|reply
Winning lottery and dying in your newly bought racing car, ok. Just dying, I do not see the irony.
But it might just be me, and probably as with taste one cannot really discuss that.
[+] [-] leephillips|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adam_ellsworth|4 years ago|reply
However, looking at Etymonline's definitions, I find myself in a difficult spot of having to rethink how Irony can be expressed:
eironeia "dissimulation, assumed ignorance,"...
https://www.etymonline.com/word/irony#etymonline_v_12234
So I thank you for sharing your thoughts because what you stated gave me pause: I agree with you in part, felt your conclusions are linked in a way, but it's clear that I have a long way to go to understand the topic.
That said, and from the article, "Coincidences involve juxtaposition and incongruity, but they aren’t counterfactual and don’t involve pretense." The syntax/logic statements in this sentence make my head spin :(
Beyond the book linked, if anyone has further suggestions on readings on Irony please share. Thank you.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] fergie|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jtsummers|4 years ago|reply
So I'll pose this as a question to the community: About halfway down the article there was a link (for me) to "What Nihilism is Not" with a description "In order to preserve nihilism as a meaningful concept, it’s necessary to distinguish it from pessimism, cynicism, and apathy." Is it ironic that in an article about irony there is a link to an article on a philosophy premised on the meaninglessness of life that intends to preserve its meaningfulness?
[+] [-] chairhairair|4 years ago|reply
It is ironic to write an article with the aim of preserving the meaningfulness of the term nihilism.
It is not ironic to embed a link to that article within an article about irony.
[+] [-] JohnBooty|4 years ago|reply
Irony is generally understood to involve an outcome that is contrary to expectations.
It has been said that the textbook example of irony would be the bullet that nearly killed Ronald Reagan. The bullet initially missed him, but riccocheted off the bulletproof glass of his limo -- the thing meant to save him from bullets! -- and then struck him. In fact, it actually contributed greatly to his near-death: because the shooter never had a clear shot at Reagan, the initial assumption was that he had not been shot, and had simply hurt his ribs when being shoved into the car by his bodyguards following the shooting. Had he instead been shot directly, there would have been no such confusion or delay.
Does an article about the meaningfulness of nihilism run contrary to expectations? If it was written by a nihilist, perhaps! If it was written by a non-nihilist, I'd say no -- it would not be unexpected for others to assign meaningfulness to a philosophy that has had some impact on the world, even if those who subscribe to the philosophy maintain that there is no meaning in things.
[+] [-] _carbyau_|4 years ago|reply
The bit many people seem to skip over is that Nihilism's "meaninglessness" is in the context of long time frames.
So, actions have a timeframe of impact, with varying - but not infinite - length.
Knowing this, you can ascribe more relevant meaning to your actions, and hence better decide which actions to take.
It can also let you put past actions you regret into perspective. You will still regret those actions, but those actions, and associated regret, come with a timeframe.
[+] [-] akiselev|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 123pie123|4 years ago|reply
whose lyrics aren't ironic (they're examples of unfortunate situations), thus having a song about irony - that isn't actually ironic (in its lyrics)
thus making it the best ironic song ever
[+] [-] lloyddobbler|4 years ago|reply
Aside from that, the entire song is filled with non-ironic scenarios, yep. Agreed: the most unintentionally ironic song ever.
[+] [-] _frkl|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sonograph|4 years ago|reply
I've always thought this. It's easier to explain irony using examples than to define it.
[+] [-] wombatmobile|4 years ago|reply
In information terms, the "understand" in that sentence is a false positive.
Q: Do you know what I mean?
A: Yes.
The response above is not a verification. To be valid as a verification, the response would have to contain a restatement of the proposition, ideally in different terms that have the same meaning.
e.g.
A: You are saying that when someone claims to understand something, they have to demonstrate that understanding by regurgitating the meaning they have in mind, so as to make their understanding transparent and verifiable.
[+] [-] leephillips|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johannes1234321|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] David2076|4 years ago|reply
http://paganpressbooks.com/jpl/FOWLER.HTM
[+] [-] wombatmobile|4 years ago|reply
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-americans-dont-get-ir...
[+] [-] SPBS|4 years ago|reply
An interesting counterpoint would be that although Japanese communication is extremely high-context, they don't grasp the concept of sarcasm at all. This leads to situations like this
https://twitter.com/ceallachs_/status/1275296527783653381
[+] [-] ggm|4 years ago|reply
So, the man, portentiously explaining what mansplaining is, while the woman next to him sits quietly.
Or, the criminal, railling at his car being keyed, while he was breaking into a house.
[+] [-] pengaru|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] b0rsuk|4 years ago|reply
The right wing / conservative people in my country frequently call their political opponents "lemmings", to imply they're deluded, misinformed and mindlessly rushing towards their deaths.
The mass suicide of lemmings is a myth. The most notable perpetuator is Disney, which in a 1958 documentary movie "White Wilderness" staged a "suicide" scene, complete with pushing lemmings off a cliff. There were more cases of involving Disney.
So whenever right winged/conservative describe people with opposing views as "lemmings", they accuse them of being misinformed yet are proving themselves to be misinformed.
To top it off, the "documentary" movie won an Academy Award, which is also itself ironic, because misinformation has been rewarded as educational.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]