Bradley Murray

Key points: I outline what I call "philosophical irony", which is a playful attitude in which we wonder whether we mean exactly what we say I contrast this idea of philosophical irony with the more familiar dictionary definition of irony I suggest we approach being philosophical with playfulness, an idea with roots going back to Socrates You will have no difficulty finding teachings and discussions about philosophical theories and ideas. You'll find these throughout this site, on my Instagram, on philosophy encyclopedias like Stanford's and the IEP, and on Reddit, to name a few places. Learning what philosophers have said is important to helping you understand what's possible through philosophy. But if you think that's all there is to 'being philosophical', I would have to disagree. The true gateway to philosophy, as a practice and as a way of life, lies in irony. Introducing philosophical irony To get straight to the point, here is how I define the practice of "philosophical irony": Philosophical irony: Practicing philosophical irony means approaching the conversations we have throughout our everyday lives, about all kinds of different topics, with a particular attitude. We will say the things that naturally occur to us. But our attitude will be a playful one in which we are able to wonder whether we really mean all the things we are saying. That is what makes it an "ironical" attitude. Let me give you an example. Philip: What are the priorities a person should have in their life? Connie: A person's priorities should be to get an education, get a good job and earn a lot of money so they can get a nice house and nice things to enjoy during their leisure time. Connie, before acquiring the skill of irony, says this in a totally serious way without a hint of playfulness. She has been told that this is what a person's priorities should be by her mother and father, teachers, and anyone who ever took an interest in her development as she was growing up. She believes it 100 percent. Connie, after acquiring the skill of irony, says what she says to Philip, but now more playfully. She still believes it, let's say 75 percent, but she is able to wonder 25 percent whether she really means all of it. Where does Connie's being able to wonder 25 percent about what she's saying come from? She realizes that she is just presenting one of many possible ideas about what priorities a person should have. She realizes that her parents and teachers were limited in their knowledge. She recognizes that the values of the culture or religion she happens to have grown up in are not absolute. Getting clear on the use of irony in philosophy Common uses of "irony." Quintilian defined irony as "something which is the opposite of what is actually said" (Institutio Oratoria). And the Oxford English Dictionary defines irony as "the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect." What I am calling "philosophical irony" is different from this. It is not essentially about meaning "the opposite" of what is said. It is about being playful with meaning so that one is not fully attached to what one says. Deception. Philosophical irony is not deceptive, it is honest. Its honesty lies in the fact that we say what naturally occurs to us. To stop being natural would be to fall into an unhealthy way of being philosophical. Socratic irony. Socrates' irony has long been admired. In philosophical conversation, Socrates will claim to "know nothing" and claim not to be a teacher. Yet he certainly seems to know and teach a great deal! Cicero wrote: I conceive that Socrates, for irony and dissimulation, far excelled all other men in the wit and genius which he displayed. It is an elegant kind of humour, satirical with a mixture of gravity, and adapted to oratory as well as to polite conversation (De Oratore). Scholars have spilled a lot of ink concerning Socrates' irony. I do not intend to enter into the scholarly discussion of Socrates' irony here. But I will mention one interesting question that has come up: was Socrates being deceptive when he spoke ironically, or not? I like to think not. Gregory Vlastos' interpretation of Socrates has been an interesting contribution to the scholarship. Vlastos claims that there is complexity to Socrates' irony, so that "what is said both is and isn’t what is meant: its surface content is meant to be true in one sense, false in another." From this point of view, simply to describe Socrates as meaning the "opposite" of what is said misses the fact that he also means exactly what he says. What, then, is the effect of Socrates' irony? Vlastos thinks that the effect is to produce "riddles" that are offered up to be solved by his conversational partners. Playfulness and seriousness. I am most drawn to the tradition according to which there is a certain lightness and playfulness that goes along with being philosophical. Many people have understood Socrates along these lines. We can be philosophical while still experiencing a love of life. Playfulness is part of the conception of irony that I see as foundational for philosophy. I struggle with philosophy that begins with a devastating seriousness that can sometimes border on despair. In Hegel and Kierkegaard, we find the idea that Socratic irony should be understood as an "infinite absolute negativity." They thought that Socrates called into question his entire "actuality," i.e. the whole way of life of Greek culture. Described in this way, irony takes on a heaviness and seriousness. Hegel and Kierkegaard were themselves, in their own ways, serious philosophers. Skepticism. Philosophical irony is not the same as skepticism, understood as the view that the appropriate thing is to train ourselves to withhold judgement about some or all subjects. Such skepticism is very unnatural for most human beings and it is difficult to see how it is compatible with anything approaching a love of life. Philosophical irony, in my sense, is not skeptical. We should talk naturally while we are being philosophical, allowing ourselves to speak the judgments that occur to us spontaneously. As we do so, we should also train ourselves to keep a bit of playful distance from what we are saying. The future of philosophy, beyond reason The Cambridge English Dictionary defines philosophy as "the use of reason in understanding such things as the nature of the real world and existence, the use and limits of knowledge, and the principles of moral judgment." But this does not say anything related to what I am calling "philosophical irony." In my opinion, such a definition does not capture what is most interesting about being philosophical. I would go further than this: living as we are in an age of AI, many of the tasks that have been the bread and butter of philosophy, especially throughout the century of analytic philosophy we have lived through, can be outsourced to machines. What would be left of philosophy in the future if we thought of philosophy solely in terms of the exercise of reason, but completely forgot about the attitude that goes along with being philosophical? At any rate, this article is not primarily aimed at professional analytic philosophers, but rather at people who have a genuine interest in philosophy as a way of living a life with more depth, meaning, and freedom. If you are one of these people, then the message to you has to be: without also developing philosophical irony as a practical skill for your daily life, you may be going part way but not all the way towards gaining the rewards from philosophy you're seeking. Cite this article: Murray, B. (2024, November). Being Philosophical: Irony as Gateway. Philosophies of Life. https://philosophiesoflife.org/

Bradley Murray

Being Philosophical: Irony as Gateway

Philosophy of Life: Six Dimensions