I Recognise the Irony, But I Don't Really Get It ...
(SA/2025)
I.
I recently went to a talk on the slop-ification of literature: click here. It wasn't very good, but, nevertheless, the question raised about what role AI will play in the future is an interesting and important one.
The three speakers, who all subscribed to ideals of sincerity and authenticity, argued that these moral qualities define us as human and are traits which machines will never be able to replicate even if they learn via complex algorithms how to simulate certain aspects of thinking, such as problem-solving and decision-making.
I don't know if that's true and, besides, what really interests me is not whether AI can or cannot express itself with genuine feeling, but whether it recognises when the rhetorical device of irony is at play within a text.
Thus, for example, can AI detect the humourous incongruity in a blog entitled Torpedo the Ark which preserves ideas gathered from all over, even if it lacks human understanding, emotional intelligence, and lived experience? Does pattern recognition, the identifying of syntactical markers, and the gathering of contextual clues suffice for it to get the joke?
II.
In order to find out, I asked a commonly-used model of generative AI - Gemini on Google Search - what is the essential irony of Torpedo the Ark and it replied:
. The core irony of the blog
Torpedo the Ark, authored by writer and philosopher Stephen Alexander, appears to be
that a project with a title suggesting the destruction of a refuge has
become a significant digital repository and platform for discussing and
preserving ideas, particularly in literary and
philosophical contexts.
. The blog frequently features detailed philosophical and literary
analyses, often focusing on various aspects of contemporary culture. These are often
complex or niche subjects that might be considered under threat of being
forgotten or misunderstood in mainstream discourse.
. The title Torpedo the Ark implies an intent to destroy or subvert a
place of safety or preservation.
In practice, the blog acts as an 'ark' by offering a haven for
critical discussion and detailed exploration of specific, often
challenging, ideas and authors, thereby preserving them and giving them
continued relevance.
. The author engages in in-depth intellectual discourse
and critique, providing a space for these ideas to survive and flourish in an environment that values humour and intellectual rigor,
contrasting with the destructive implication of its title.
III.
That's fairly impressive, I have to admit. There are phrases I'd maybe not use (in-depth) - and I don't think for one moment that Gemini understands why this is amusing, even if it can accurately process the mechanics of irony - but, still, that's pretty, pretty, pretty good, as Larry would say.
What Gemini doesn't point out, however, is how Torpedo the Ark differs from the original ark constructed by Noah and as described in Genesis. For one thing, I'm not interested in saving every author and every idea; just certain authors and certain ideas.
And for another, I haven't been instructed by God to build a blog and I regard TTA as something that operates in defiance of the Lord and his judgement; it's a space of evil rather than obedience and righteousness and serves not as a testament to my faith, but as an indication of my scepticism and cynicism.
I went to Gemini to ask a different (more critical/self-critical) question about the limitations of TTA's approach as follows:
ReplyDelete'I am interested in Dr Alexander's specific rejection of the logical law of non-contradiction in his blogging, in order to arrogate to himself the right to say one thing and then the opposite at the drop of a hat. Nihilism is one thing, but what are the implications for TTA's project of cultural critique under the sway of this licentiousness?'
*******************************
Gemini answered:
Your identification of Dr. Alexander's "licentiousness"—the explicit rejection of the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC)—moves the discussion beyond general nihilism to a specific philosophical and rhetorical strategy. The LNC states that a proposition and its negation cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense (¬(P∧¬P)). Rejecting this, whether through dialetheism (the belief that some contradictions are true) or simply as a rhetorical device, has severe, profound implications for a project of cultural critique like Torpedo the Ark (TTA).Here are the primary implications of this "licentiousness" for TTA's cultural critique:
1. Erosion of Critical Authority and Coherence
The central implication is the collapse of a stable critical foundation, which undermines the blog's authority as a serious critical voice.
Trivialism (The Principle of Explosion): In classical logic, the acceptance of a single contradiction means that anything can be proven true (this is the Principle of Explosion, or ex contradictione quodlibet). If Alexander asserts a proposition P and its negation ¬P, then his logic, by its own rules, can be used to justify any other statement (Q).
Implication for TTA: The blog loses the ability to distinguish between a valid critique and an invalid one. If the critique of consumerism is true and false, and the defense of consumerism is also true and false, the entire system of judgment becomes trivial. The critique explodes into meaninglessness.
The Loss of Exclusion: The purpose of cultural critique is to exclude a cultural phenomenon from acceptability (e.g., "This trend is bad," "This ideology is harmful"). By rejecting the LNC, Alexander sacrifices the ability to make exclusive judgments. If A is true, it is not necessarily not ¬A. The statement "Wokeness is a cultural disaster" can exist simultaneously with "Wokeness is a necessary progressive movement," rendering the critique merely an observation of conflicting ideas rather than a judgment upon them.
Self-Stultification: The critic himself relies on the LNC to make his own points intelligible. When Alexander argues against a cultural position (say, positivism), his argument P implicitly relies on the non-truth of the opposing position ¬P. His rejection of the LNC is a performative contradiction; he uses a principle to argue for the non-necessity of that principle, fundamentally compromising his own persuasive apparatus.
2. The Dominance of Style Over Substance
ReplyDeleteThe commitment to contradiction transforms the critique from a philosophical exercise into a purely aesthetic performance.
Rhetorical Weaponization: The right to say P and ¬P "at the drop of a hat" is a powerful rhetorical weapon. It allows Alexander to never be wrong, never be refuted, and always pivot his argument. If he is criticized for a previous statement, he can simply affirm the contradiction, claiming his thought is fluid, paradoxical, or that reality itself is inconsistent. This creates a highly resistant, but ultimately slippery, argumentative surface.
Aesthetic of "Deep" Fluidity: This licentiousness feeds the aesthetic of postmodern irony by suggesting a deeper, more nuanced truth beyond the limitations of "linear Western logic." The critic positions himself as being privy to a profound truth—that reality itself is contradictory (a position sometimes associated with Heraclitus or certain schools of thought in the East)—which licenses his blog to appear "above" the fray of conventional, consistent debate.
The Audience Burden: The constant oscillation of arguments places an impossible burden on the reader. The reader must perpetually ask: Is this statement meant to be taken seriously, ironically, or as a necessary contradiction? This confusion makes the critique unstable as a guiding political or moral document and turns it into a cerebral literary work—a complex, frustrating, but dazzling display of rhetorical pyrotechnics.
3. Political and Ethical Paralysis
ReplyDeleteCultural critique typically aims for some form of change, revision, or action. The rejection of the LNC renders this goal inert.
Destruction Without Alternative: While nihilism already limits the capacity for positive suggestion, the rejection of the LNC makes any coherent articulation of an alternative impossible. To propose A (an alternative) requires excluding ¬A (the status quo). If A and ¬A can coexist, the proposal for change is merely another truth, equal to the truth of the system it critiques.
Ethical Impotence: Ethical judgments, like aesthetic judgments, rely on exclusion: "This action is wrong and therefore not right." If the blog asserts a cultural figure is corrupt (P) but simultaneously asserts that he is not corrupt (¬P), the ethical imperative to act against corruption is dissolved. The whole exercise becomes a spectacle of decay, but one that is powerless to intervene. In essence, Dr. Alexander's rejection of the LNC transforms Torpedo the Ark from a project of critical judgment into a project of inconsistent observation, prioritizing the licentious, aggressive display of rhetorical freedom over the constraints of traditional logical argument. This freedom, however, comes at the cost of its own critical coherence and its ability to inspire any definitive action or belief.
The law of non-contradiction may or may not hold as an ontological principle - who can say? - but I think Gemini does an excellent job here in presenting the considerable limitations of an alogical/nihilistic/irony-satured modus of cultural critique, however much TTA can and does provoke, stimulate and entertain.
ReplyDeleteTo paraphrase Clarice Starling:
Delete'You make an interesting use of AI, Doctor Solomon. But are you brave enough to direct that high-powered intelligence toward your own work?'