Te philosophy of irony has had, since its romantic origins, no good reputationbecause of its methodological and logical inconclusiveness and its contamination withliterature. Whether we talk about Friedrich Schlegel or Paul de Man, about SørenKierkegaard or Friedrich Nietzsche, Richard Rorty or Peter Sloterdijk, the “ironists”are hated because of their ability to say, even on the verge of death: “however”. Techarge that philosophy makes against ironists is based on three “suspicions”: 1) thatthey are not philosophically consistent and, therefore, that they, ultimately, do notknow how to ironize themselves; 2) that their irony is only a disguised “egology”, asHegel would claim and assumes literary forms, if nothing else because the ironists usean autobiographical form; 3) fnally that they are vitiated by a sort of anthropological“lack of commitment”, or – as Rorty would say – a “lack of solidarity”, and, therefore,they are quite often inefective and even harmful from a social and political point ofview. In the following pages I will try to dissolve these “suspicions” through a close and“ironic” reading of two texts that belong to this tradition of cultural (not only literary) analysis, telling the story of an elective afnity between two emblematic thinkers:Friedrich Schlegel and Paul de Man.
|Number of pages||18|
|Journal||Rivista di Estetica|
|Publication status||Published - 2019|