Irony

First of all, I’d like to mention that I find this entire story ironic. The fact that van Gogh was killed because his irony went over the top (in one person’s perspective) in a country where speaking out and saying one’s mind seems to be an essential quality. However, I find it hard to see how irony can be a vital component of any culture’s make-up. A culture can, on the whole, appreciate irony and say ironic things, but I have trouble seeing it as a part of their make-up. Additionally, sometimes I’d swear that Buruma’s definition of irony is not entirely congruent with mine. I suppose I am just being picky about his wording. Anyway, although humor can be a way of escaping blame, saying something with humor can often be the best way of making people listen and stop to think about the comment made. As Buruma mentions, rappers often employ irony in their compositions. (although I personally do not see the connection between them pretending to be murderers and irony). Their compositions are often a way of almost forcibly drawing attention to a certain topic. Irony is an attention grabber—I’ve noticed that incongruence and humor both draw the attention like nothing else. And, later, people will remember the words and phrasing and will think back on the meaning in those words and phrases.

I also enjoyed Buruma’s comment about religious clothing, because it is something I have also observed here in America. Some will display their religious affiliations proudly with their clothing, while some will hardly even care that they are wearing religiously-based clothing—it is something they have always worn, that they have been told to wear by their parents and if you ask them about it, all you get is an indifferent shrug. Of course, there are also the others, who dress religiously almost as a fashion, who seem to care less about the original meaning in the clothes, than in the “look” that it can give them. I found Buruma’s observations on this topic were quite accurate.

I had trouble finding a link between the Buruma and Wouters readings. Perhaps the trouble comes from the fact that I was mildly confused by the Wouters article. There were one or two points in the conclusion at the end that I didn’t realize was talked about at all. I will have to read it again later (I’ve already reread it twice, but third time’s the charm, after all). One thing that I would like to mention, though it has almost no relevance, was that I was very amused by this concept of “the science of science”. I am also amused that we are basically contemplating the “science of science” scientifically, so this article is almost the science of “science of science”. Yes, I am amused by random things. However, I would like to comment on Julie’s comment on “knowledge limiting knowledge”. Although I am sure that this can be true in some cases, I don’t quite see how it was brought up by the article. It seemed to indicate that the more that was learned about the topic, the more that could be done to improve STS.

As for the random thought—I still remember one comment by Buruma stating that 2nd generation immigrants were much more likely to be schizophrenic than the average Dutch, or the average 1st generation immigrant. I thought that was very interesting.