Driver License Renewal Columbus, Ohio Locations

irony

The irony is one of the words that are used most inappropriately, by most people, attributing meanings to the word in question are very far from the correct one. The irony is, for example, a synonym of "strange and somewhat funny coincidence" ("hey, it's called Low family name and it's really low, how ironic! "). A coincidence could be considered ironic, at best, when there is some contrast between the two (my name down, are two meters high and twenty centimeters). It is not not even a word used to signify the genericissimo humor of any kind.

The irony is simply a figure of speech consisting in affirming one thing but meaning the opposite. For example, if I see on TV and say Monica Bellucci "Look at that process pedals" I'm doing irony, because I want to say is that Monica Bellucci is not an ugly woman.

But it's important to distinguish the irony of the lie, or deceit. If one asks me how I am on the phone and I say I'm bad, though in reality I feel good, maybe because I did not want to go out with him and see him, I'm not being ironic, but I'm just lying.

outside, the difference is hard to grasp, an ironic phrase and a lie are formally indistinguishable, except for a certain tone of voice that can help you grasp the meaning of the utterance. What matters, however, is the intention. Since irony is not will to deceive anyone, usually used in contexts where it is difficult to be a really misled.

For example, in the case of Monica Bellucci, it is obvious to anyone watching TV with me that Bellucci is a great piece of woman (to add the other wicked irony, I could also say "but at least you understand that when he speaks is very intelligent") and then he can understand that I can not be serious. Instead my other person on the phone can not know how I'm actually, so even if I wanted to do irony fail because he did not how to take it.

The irony is therefore a sophisticated epistemological stance, a fairly convoluted and complicated to say something. If I want to say that Monica Bellucci is beautiful, because I do not say directly that she is beautiful, but to say that it is a process, risking to be misunderstood and to be mistaken for someone who does not appreciate the beautiful women? Well, ignoring the poverty of the example, the goal is probably humorous, and although this leaves open the question even more complex, what is the humor.

However, the irony, though often aggressive, it's quite popular in society, and sometimes it is also a way to defuse tensions. If you say something that proved to be particularly annoying, you can always get away with saying "but I was ironic." "You're a filthy dickhead", "How dare you?", "I was ironic," "LOL". "I think I will vote the League," "I divorce, "" I was ironic, "I love you.

is also a way to pass himself off as intelligent people, especially in the version, particularly popular, called" irony ", which consists of assuming attitudes of contempt against it to signify that it is instead of the genes (or self-exaltation, said to be beautiful to signify that it was ugly, but always to make people understand to be ironic and then intellgent). That is to say ironically being silly, for some mysterious reason, increases the chances of being considered intelligent, much more than claiming to be intelligent enough (which is often even counterproductive).

authority suprema, in fatto di ironia e autoironia, è il filosofo greco Socrate, che ad esempio diceva spesso di essere ignorante, ma in realtà si considerava una persona molto saggia, e infatti proprio il suo "so di non sapere" è considerato un esempio di grande saggezza. Per questo, al posto del termine "ironia", si usa spesso anche "ironia socratica".

Però c'è un piccolo problema. Il fatto è che, sebbene il termine "ironia" sia attestato negli scritti platonici, e proprio in riferimento a Socrate, ai tempi di Socrate quel termine non significava affatto la stessa cosa che significa oggi. In effetti, εἰρωνεία significava proprio "falsità", "ipocrisia". Quindi Socrates' interlocutors, a careful reading, they were not complimenting him for his humor, but was giving the false and hypocritical.

Gregory Vlastos, in his fine essay on Socrates, argues that the term probably also had a secondary meaning, closer to that of today, and who would later become the most popular sense of the term, by obscuring the primary meaning, just with Socrates. Although it is true that Socrates' opponents accuse him of irony to be understood to mean something negative, and not exactly a compliment, it is also true that Socrates is not just deceiving them.

that of Socrates, however, Nor is irony in the modern sense of the word, because it is also true, as the discomfort felt by his audience shows, there is an element of concealment in her attitude. If that was irony in using a contemporary, would be a misuse of irony, because it constantly misunderstood and not understood. As one who wants to be funny but that is just continually forced to explain his jokes ("I'm sorry, I was ironic).

course, the irony of Socrates is more destabilizing than today, because they do not always understand. Vlastos calls it "complex irony." In essence, this is one thing to say, not understanding the exact opposite, but meaning just what it says, only in a sense other than the most literal and immediately understandable.

For example, when Socrates claims to be ignorant, asking his audience to enlighten him on some aspects of knowledge, it is not accurate to say that this is a figure of speech that Socrates is in fact claiming to be wise. Socrates is considered a very ignorant one who does not know. But his ignorance invites us to consider another point of view, positive, considering it a form of knowledge, deeper than the superficial knowledge of the sophists and notional.

Similarly, when in a famous passage from the Symposium (that of Xenophon, not the Platone), sostiene di poter vincere un concorso di bellezza con un avvenente giovanotto, nonostante avesse fama di essere bruttissimo, non è semplicemente perché faccia dell'umorismo, o della (argh) autoironia. Egli in realtà ci invita a riconsiderare i concetti di bellezza e bruttezza, e a vederli sotto nuove e inedite angolazioni. Ci sta dicendo, per chi vuole capirlo, che esiste un tipo di bellezza più importante di quella del corpo.

SOCRATE. Pensi forse che la bellezza si dia solo nell'uomo, o anche in qualche altro essere?

CRITOBULO. Io credo che la si possa trovare anche in un cavallo o in un bue ed in molte cose inanimate. Ad esempio io riconosco come bello uno scudo, una sword or a spear.

S. And how is it possible that so many different things can be beautiful and free from any relationship with each other?

C. Why, if these objects were made in a timely manner for the purposes for which we buy them, or are designed by nature to our needs, then these objects I call them beautiful in each case.

S. Well, then your eyes to what we need?

C. Of course, to see.

S. Then it is shown that ready-my eyes are more beautiful than yours. Why? Why do your see only what is in front of you, as my protruding out so that I can see is also what I alongside no less than what I faced.

C. You mean the crab is an animal that has the most beautiful eyes?

S. That's right, because from the point of view of efficiency, his eyes are better than those designed by nature.

C. All right, but which of our two noses is the best?

S. My, I would say it is true that the gods have given us the nostrils to catch the smells, since your are directed to the ground, while mine are pretty large so as to incorporate the smells from all sides.

C. But how does a snub nose Could be more beautiful than a right?

S. Why does not constitute an obstacle, but allowing the eyes to see what they want, while a higher back of the nose as it obstructs the view of spite.

C. The same will also apply to the mouth, I grant you right now, because if the mouth is made to bite, you can nip a lot bigger than mine.

S. Then, with my thick lips, do not think I can give much more soft kisses?

C. To give you listening, I would have a mouth ugliest asses.

S. This is not, then, another reason why I'm better looking than you? The Naiad, who are goddesses, Sileni generate those which resemble much more to me than to you.

C. I do not know how they react. It also put to the vote to decide now what should I do or I have to pay a fine.

Socrates, nowadays, if it made its appearance on a social network, would not be considered a person's ironic. The irony now is something harmless, non-disruptive, not angry and does not reflect. Socrates was so angry but his contemporaries who eventually had to kill to get rid of him. The right word for Socrates is not "ironic" but another. Socrates today would be a fake.

New York State Driver's License Template

falsehood

This picture is only marginally related to the article, but it is was taken especially for me by my friend Elisa Gianola (rights reserved), so if you do not like the article, but you like the photos please votarmi the same for the Macchianera Blog Award.

Waiting on the epidemiology of beliefs becomes a discipline truly believe that we can identify some fixed patterns, some common reasons behind the fascination with certain urban legends, of certain common myths often in academia.

Today I will talk about conspiracy theories, in their delusion that needs no explanation apart. The fact is that everyone (but especially, I have to recognize those who have to do with the humanities and philosophy) we have had experience of theories patently absurd but mysteriously become mainstream and almost universally accepted that the "conventional falsehood." I think the appeal of certain beliefs and why they spread lies precisely in this, in our love (often successful) to the paradoxes: it is hard to resist a theory that goes against our intuition, but is also extremely rich in implications, and then makes us see the world in a different light.

The clearest example that comes to mind is the psychoanalytic theory of Freud. Psychoanalysis has changed the world, there are no doubts about his great impact on contemporary culture, but there is only one small problem: it is empirically false, as each of us can testify that he never passed through the antechamber of the brain to make love to his mother. Freud of course, respond immediately that it was the revulsion we feel for incest is a sign of censorship by the superego on our unconscious desires, which is only one explanation ad hoc (a classic "heads I win, tails you lose") only with this simple move has already screwed, why not go for bigots we are forced to consider the idea, to explore all the implications: some blocks that make up our world view are moved to make some attempt, until at some point it snaps something in my head that says "hey, but this is pretty cool! would be crazy if it were really so, why did not I think of that before."

philosophers in particular, I said, like to impress others with paradoxical reasoning, acceptance of which more or less supine depends on the prestige of the philosopher or more generally by zeitgeist: we have not yet released at all, and maybe not ever free from Wittgenstein, people believe that even when we're on the toilet bowl what we do, in fact, is "language game", not to mention the deconstructionists, who believe that any text, including instructions for assembly of Ikea furniture, not actually speak of nothing but himself, negating any claim on its own to refer to nothing outside itself (which is why we serve there, no?).

What usually pushes the philosophers, however, is really the love of paradox for the sake of paradox when things get a bit 'more complicated as regards the ground of psychology or sociology, where ideological considerations, and sometimes the mere wishful thinking often cooperate to the distortion of reality. It is totally unrealistic to expect to find in the manuals for use by schools, a realistic description of the functioning of our societies or impulses that drive individuals to act in certain ways: it says only what people want to hear, have a largely comforting.

An example on which I've discussed recently is the phenomenon of bullying. Until recently the most common description of the phenomenon (still popular among non-specialists) described the figure of the bully, violent and aggressive, as motivated by a disregard of self, low self-esteem and a fragile and insecure personality. Recent research has highlighted that this theory lacks any empirical support (rather than the evidence leads to the opposite conclusion, namely that the bullies have un'alta considerazione di sé e pochissima per gli altri, e proprio per questo tendono ad essere violenti) ma quello che dovrebbe sorprendere, in primo luogo, è che qualcuno abbia mai potuto pensare una cosa del genere, e che sia stato pure ascoltato.

Perché mai chi sfrutta la propria superiorità fisica per vessare gli altri, avendo pure successo e traendo conferme dal proprio atteggiamento, dovrebbe sentirsi insicuro? Davvero si pensa che, fra carnefice e vittima, quello che sta male sia il carnefice? Ma la cura dell'autostima sembra essere diventata la panacea di tutti i mali, non solo del bullismo. Qualcuno forse è convinto che dare lezioni di autostima a Totò Riina aiuterebbe a risolvere il problema della criminalità organized.

gone on to another myth psycho-pedagogical, still taught the theory of Bowlby (the most popular on the mother-child relationship, after Freud). The first months of life, Bowlby argues, are critical because the future relational behaviors depend on the quality of attachment to the mother, which is depending on its sensitivity and availability. If the attachment is insecure all the relationships built in the future with other personalities will be characterized by emotional instability and fragility, but if you establish an appropriate attachment relationship (if the child gets enough protection, a sense of security and affection shown by reference ) we have a development ottimale della personalità. Per farla breve, è la teoria: "poveretto, si vede che ha i genitori separati".

Peccato che Bowlby non abbia pensato a verificare se il comportamento tenuto dai bambini nell'ambiente familiare avesse qualche correlazione con quello tenuto nell'ambiente scolastico o dei propri compagni di gioco, o controllare che tali modelli perdurassero nell'età adulta. Perché si dà il caso che, escludendo le variabili genetiche (i figli tendono ad assomigliare ai genitori) non vi sia alcuna correlazione. Ma per questo non c'era bisogno di fare delle ricerche, anche se è bene non fidarsi delle impressioni personali. Ad esempio, basta considerare a quanti è capitato di incontrare il classico angioletto well-bred which is the joy of the parents, which turns into a psychopathic creature Lovecraftian immense destructive power is not just out of reach. People adapt to their environment that they find, and do not have any meaning, for survival, slavishly copying the patterns of behavior learned in one context to play them anywhere. The theory has no other function than to easily identify those responsible for a bad outcome of education. Continuing

second Gregory Bateson, schizophrenia is a result of "double bind", or of ambiguous messages. That is, if you insist on giving conflicting messages to your kids, those at risk of becoming schizophrenic. Esempio (tratto dall' Enciclopedia multimediale delle scienze filosofiche ): "la madre torna a casa carica di pacchi della spesa […] il figlio di sei anni le si fa incontro, pronto ad abbracciarla. La madre gli dice: 'Abbracciami, perché non mi abbracci?', mentre invece questo evidentemente è impossibile, dato che ha in mano i pacchetti". Miseriaccia, l'avreste mai detto che un incidente così banale può portare a una cosa seria come la schizofrenia?

A proposito di Freud, oltre al complesso di Edipo, si potrebbero citare altre amenità, come l'invidia del pene, che fanno tanto arrabbiare le femministe, salvo che le femministe hanno poco da gioire perché are among the principal determinants of the spread of theories no less absurd than Freudian. One of my favorites is that of the diffusion front of matriarchal societies, the paleolithic era, this patriarchy and male oppression and of course responsible for all the wars and violence. Classic example of evidence that goes across from one side (you know many matriarchal societies, you?) And theory that goes in the opposite direction (the matriarchy is the true "natural" state of humanity).

Many feminists, then, are also convinced that our current Western society is "particularly" oppressive to them, and this, needless to say, goes against all evidence. Societies that oppress women, it's trivial but it is worth remembering, not the ones with advertising posters and naked women everywhere attacked, but those where naked women are not seen just never (want to give you any feedback on good taste certain images). And these are companies where you consume more often violence against women. I just do not want to hear you say, perhaps because this is how we would remove a scapegoat (which is not human nature) for the violence that still occur.

The review ends here because otherwise it becomes too controversial, and I do not have it with anyone. I reflected on the possible usefulness of certain theories, because the natural history also offers wonderful examples of completely counterintuitive theories proved right: the Copernican theory tells us that the Sun is stationary, against appearances, and the Earth is moving at high speed even though we do not notice anything. And even the continents are moving close to or far from each other, thanks to forces that we can scarcely imagine (what can move a continent?).

But Galileo and Wegener had not met immediately by the unconditional approval of the scientific community. On the contrary, as we know. This is not an evil, despite the petty rules with which he tried to silence Galileo: scientific theories must be innovative criticized, even at the cost of making the figure of the old conservative, so that we can understand what they really hope and what are simply crap. Today everyone wants to be revolutionaries, the problem of science is to protect you from Galileo, to embrace and avoid any nonsense just because it is inconsistent with the knowledge handed down and even with good sense (I think homeopathy, I think creationism). Or maybe because it is convenient from a political point of view.