Details Discussion 16 Print Report

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 16, 2003
Location: Washington D.C.

Total Topics: 66
Total Posts: 1
#1 - Quote - Permalink
Posted May 2, 2003 - 8:40 AM:

I'm going to try my best to not suggest an answer in the way I word this, so if it's too vague bare with me:

Sarcasm and philosophy, what are your thoughts?
think fast

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: May 08, 2002
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 40
#2 - Quote - Permalink
Posted May 2, 2003 - 9:22 AM:

Detailed logical coherence vs intentional confusion and vagueness.... almost opposites.

They don't mix well... usually smiling face

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 10, 2003
Location: Canada

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 0
#3 - Quote - Permalink
Posted May 2, 2003 - 4:55 PM:

......... Yet when used properly, sarcasm can help make a point, that is, if you don't mind getting literal answers to your sarcastic question sticking out tongue
180 Proof

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: [virgo supercluster [local group [milky way [sol III [northern hemisphere [-7/8hrs gmt]]]]]]

Total Topics: 151
Total Posts: 2389
#4 - Quote - Permalink
Posted May 3, 2003 - 12:03 AM:

philosophy of sarcasm ...

sarcasm of philosophy ...

sarcastic philosophers ...

philosophical sarcasm ...

how long can you stand one without the other?

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 29, 2002

Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2
#5 - Quote - Permalink
Posted May 3, 2003 - 3:51 PM:

At first glance it makes sense to say philosophy should not contain any sarcasm. Habermas makes a similar point about literary criticism:

it [criticism] has responded to the increasing autonomy of linguistic works of art by means of a discourse specialized for questions of taste. In it, the claims with which literary texts appear are submitted to examination -- claims to 'artistic truth', aesthetic harmony, exemplary validity, innovative force, and authenticity. In this respect, aesthetic criticism is similar to argumentative forms specialized for propositional truth and the rightness of norms, that is, to theoretical and practical discourse. It is, however, not merely an esoteric component of expert cultrue but, beyond this, has the job of mediating between expert culture and everyday world. "The Philosophical Discourse on Modernity", p. 207.

Note: I took this from Christopher Norris, "What's Wrong with Postmodernism" p. 66. I don't have a copy of the Habermas text.

I think both philosophy and literary criticism still have an obligation to explain things to the unintiated -- especially as both fields become/became inward looking and more, as Habermas says, esoteric. But what are you going to do do? You can't go ahead and start stating rules: no sarcasm, no irony, no intuition pumps? No metaphor, no stories? And even if you could do that, what would happen, philosophy becomes pretty dry stuff (even if the common conception of it is that it's already dry), but let's say a great philosopher appears on the stage under such a draconian regime. Don't we also examine his private communication, the anecdotes, his biographies and his personal views and/or prejudices?

And then aren't we in the same boat anyway?

With that said, one of these days I want to address "Limited Inc" directly. I can't guarantee I'll do it, but I think Derrida makes a big mistake there. He misses his target audience.

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 08, 2003
Location: San Diego

Total Topics: 128
Total Posts: 46
#6 - Quote - Permalink
Posted May 3, 2003 - 4:13 PM:

Think of sarcasm as unbridled criticism, as it often is; if the connection cannot be made, to hell with just plain sarcasm. Others just can’t take criticism and resound with sarcasm.. And some people just can’t give it—not in a positive, motivating, mutually beneficial manner, anyway. That’s too bad, because criticism is essential to Philosophical as well as scientific progress.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2003
Location: Lincoln England

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 0
#7 - Quote - Permalink
Posted May 4, 2003 - 2:46 AM:

Sarcasm can be used to point out how stupid you find someone to be. The point of being sarcastic is that the person can take your statement two ways, depending on whether or not they are paranoid.

If they are paranoid they will think the worst of your statements.
If they are okay they will think the best of them.

If they are really stupid they won't know the difference, and be puzzled and keep wondering what the hell you were on about.
Baron Max

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 01, 2002

Total Topics: 171
Total Posts: 6
#8 - Quote - Permalink
Posted May 4, 2003 - 3:16 AM:

Hmm, personally, I think sarcasm should be outlawed in any discussions of a philosophical nature! In fact, I ain't so sure that the penalty for it shouldn't be death by injection ...or possibly even hanging if ye're in Texas! smiling face

Okay, okay, that might be going a bit far ...maybe just banned for life of ever discussing philosophical topics again. Is that better? See, I can be compassionate, too, ya' know? smiling face

Baron Max

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 05, 2002
Location: Portland

Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 61
#9 - Quote - Permalink
Posted May 4, 2003 - 3:50 AM:

As long as I don't get the condescending rolling eyes I can live with anything else.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 16, 2003
Location: Washington D.C.

Total Topics: 66
Total Posts: 1
#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted May 4, 2003 - 6:18 PM:

So, is there something[s] that you can say with sarcasm better than any other way to say it?

This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.