This paper reconsiders a well-known Diophantine problem-“the coconut puzzle”-with two philosophically humorous motives. The first motive is methodological; the second, ontological. First, different methodological approaches to solving this problem, namely those of the stereotypical engineer, physicist, and mathematician, are informed by different conceptualizations of the mathematical puzzle itself. This is illustrated by comparing stereotypical solutions by an engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician. Second, ontological implications of Dirac’s unorthodox solution precipitate heuristic questions concerning correspondence between mathematically admissible answers and physically (...) possible states. An anecdotal history of this problem is also cited, in order to prepare the ground for a concluding satirical solution by an erstwhile Carlylean economist. (shrink)

This chapter argues that SNL tends, with some exceptions, away from the philosophical and satirical areas of the spectrum and more towards the smart‐assical, silly side. Moreover, just like SNL sketches, Aristophanes' plays often subjected contemporary figures, celebrities, and politicians to intense ridicule. The sketch provided SNL a way of criticizing its own network by allowing the writers and actors to adopt a different persona, thus creating a safe distance between critic and target. Setting aside how accurately the scenario sketched (...) at the outset depicts typical SNL performances, it should be noted that it does paint a fair picture of staged satire in Athens, Greece, circa. As in the case of Aristophanes, most of SNL's satirical qualities revolve around political debates, issues, and, most famously, figures. (shrink)

The article considers the question of the study of satire in philosophy. The study found that satire is an underdeveloped topic in the field of Ukrainian philosophy and the philosophy of Englishspeaking countries. For instance, the works of the last five to six years by such philosophers as D. Ab rahams and D. Declercq, who echoed the opinion of C. W. Mendell concerning the close connection of satire with philosophy. In the work “Satire as Popular Philosophy” (...) created at the be ginning of the 20th century Mendell proved that ancient satire was a type of philosophy. Ne vertheless, the issue of the first place of appearance of the genre of satire in the period of Antiquity, whether in ancient Roman or ancient Greek art, needs to be clarified. Therefore, the purpose of the article is to solve a number of related questions, namely: where previously appeared satire as a genre — in Ancient Rome or in Ancient Greece, why it got such a name, and what metamorphoses took place with it over time Antiquities. One of the primary sources about the history of satire was Aristotle’s work “Poetics”, which describes iambic (humorous) and satirical poetry. According to Aristotle, the nature of satiric poetry undergo metamorphosis from the “dance” tetra meter to the iambic meter characteristic of mocking poetry. In this regard, the main part of the work is devoted to proving that satiric poetry got its name from mythological goat-like satyrs and if the performers of iambic (derisive lyrics) could be ordinary people, then the performers of satirical poems — only mythological goat-like satyrs. As a result of the research, it was found that initially the genre called satire had a poetic form and was borrowed by ancient Roman poets from ancient Greek artists. The adopted type of satire received the name “satura”, in Latin meaning “miscellany or medley” of prose and verse form of presentation of the creation. (shrink)

In ‘“Sneering, or Other Social Pelting”’, Lucy O’Brien understands sneering acts as ways of making feel that are aimed at socially downgrading a target. Sneers are essentially expressions of contempt. Although typically thought of as vicious, O’Brien argues they can also be used virtuously to disrupt social hierarchies, especially when taken up by people with low social status. I examine satire as a potentially effective means of carrying out this virtuous activity. I examine O’Brien’s account while exploring the conditions (...) that must obtain to make satire an efficacious tool for social recalibration. (shrink)

Many scholars have claimed that satire is a genre. At the same time, however, it is also widely acknowledged that satire has changed over the centuries, that it has taken various forms and that it still appears in a variety of other genres. Far from being a drawback in identifying satire as a genre, I will claim that variability is a natural property of genres if the latter are conceived of as dynamic cognitive categories that emerge out (...) of a complex interplay of heterogeneous factors which cluster differently under the effect of different contextual and cotextual attractors. I will assume that, in satire, these factors include a range of linguistic and rhetorical devices which interact in different ways to dynamically bring about specifically intended effects. I will further claim that understanding satire is a context-sensitive complex process which implies setting up and maintaining multiple mental representations, and drawing pragmatic inferences. (shrink)

La morale occupe une place centrale dans l’oeuvre de Diderot et dans Le Neveu de Rameau. La morale a un double sens: les moeurs, les opinions et les comportements valorisés dans une société et la science des moeurs. À côté des études savantes ou apologétiques (religieuses), la satire offre un moyen pour comprendre les normes et les valeurs morales, en dénonçant leur transgression par des vicieux. Le Neveu de Rameau est une « satyre ». L’article analyse le genre de (...) satire qu’est ce dialogue. Il apparaît que si d’un côté c’est Lui, le vicieux qui est la cible de la satire, de l’autre c’est lui qui fait la satire d’un milieu social qui nie les valeurs de la morale commune. L’hypothèse est que ce dispositif vise à montrer les limites de la philosophie en ce qui concerne la morale. (shrink)

Dieter Declercq’s Satire, Comedy, and Mental Health (2021) examines the nature and value of satire, critically reviews familiar ways of construing its value, and mounts an argument for understanding satire’s value in terms of the contributions it can make to our mental health. Declercq has much to say about longstanding debates—for example, over whether satire is a powerful political weapon (vs. a waste of political time and energy) and whether satire functions as a catalyst for (...) needed emotional catharsis (vs. merely a welcome distraction). But the most important contribution Satire, Comedy, and Mental Health makes is to open a new line of enquiry about satire—namely, enquiry into the relationship between satire and mental health—thereby widening the debate over satire’s significance and value. Specifically, Declercq argues that satire is most impressive for how it helps us cope with the limits of critique—that is, with our awareness that unjust suffering will persist despite our very best efforts. Critique cannot cure the world because we do not have endless resources to devote to solving all the world’s problems and righting all the world’s wrongs; even if we did, our efforts will not always be successful. Indeed, in some cases, our efforts might make things worse. We are finite and limited beings who simply cannot perfectly design, create, choreograph, and maintain the perfect utopias we so desire. This refreshingly new perspective makes this book an important addition to the scholarly literature on satire. (shrink)

The rich body of understudied imagery constituting the culture of satire in pre-World War I Paris represents the work of scores of contributing artists, ranging from mockery of manners to biting critique of government policy. While František Kupka is recognized as a major Parisian contributor to the development of modernism and abstraction, his career as a satirist has been sidelined. In 1900, Kupka wrote to his friend the Czech poet Josef S. Machar that he would devote himself in future (...) mainly to lithography and graphics as these media are more "democratic". Kupka published scores of cartoons in France in the prewar period and was recognized at the time as a leading satirist. Here I explore his work... (shrink)

This article addresses two puzzles, one about the nature of satire and its kinship with moral philosophy and the other about the possibility of practicing philosophy through works of art. While it has long been noted that moral satire and applied ethics share subject matter in common, there has been little attention to the prominence of argument by analogy in satire. This essay shows that satire has a kinship with moral philosophy close enough that it is (...) possible to practice philosophy through satire and thus possible to practice philosophy through works of narrative fiction. (shrink)

The dream of political satire - to fearlessly speak truth to power - is not matched by its actual effects. This study explores the role of satirical communication in licensing public expression of harsh emotions defined in neuroscience as the CAD triad. The mobilisation of these emotions is a fundamental distinction between satirical and comic laughter. Phiddian pursues this argument particularly through an account of Jonathan Swift and his contemporaries. They played a crucial role in the early eighteenth century (...) to make space in the public sphere for intemperate dissent, an essential condition of free political expression. (shrink)

The implications of the persona theory pose a problem for the interpretation of Juvenal's early satires, because it presents the satirist as intent on nullifying his didactic stances. This leaves us with an unsatisfactory conclusion that excises Juvenal's persistent treatment of themes consistent with contemporaneous authors who were similarly engaged in blackening the reputations of the famous dead. This article argues that a strict application of persona theory isolates Juvenal's satirist from his volatile contemporary climate by excluding him from the (...) reality that these authors—similarly directing their works to the past—were unabashedly writing only after the tyrant was safely dead. Tacitus and Pliny had lamented the servility and silence that predominated during Domitian's reign, in which the Roman world endured fifteen years of terror without uttering a word. Into this literary milieu Juvenal announces his satirist, who begins with an echo of that silence: semper ego auditor tantum? With the death of Domitian and a new atmosphere that permitted the defamation of the deceased, Juvenal injects his venomous voice into the mix, taking advantage of contemporary literary appetites that allowed for the punishment, no matter how belated, if not of the person then of the guilty one's memory. Any evaluation of Juvenal's satiric project must be firmly rooted in this, his most immediate, context. (shrink)

There is a consensus that satire cannot be defined, but is best characterized by a cluster account. However, I argue that a cluster account does not acknowledge the artistically and politically significant distinction between real satire and some forms of frivolous topical comedy which are casually labeled ‘satire’ in international media contexts. To uphold this distinction, I introduce a weak proposal that satire is a genre which necessarily sets out to critique and entertain (with the qualification (...) that these purposes necessarily interact, although neither is wholly instrumental to the other). I further argue that this proposal also provides necessary and sufficient conditions for a definition of satire. (shrink)

The chapter considers philosophical views of satire, philosophy as an object of satiric scorn, kinship and tension between satire and philosophy as activities, and what philosophy's relationship to satire suggests about philosophy as a discipline.

The topic of my dissertation is satire. This seems to excite many people, and over the past four years I have heard many variations of a similar refrain: “Oh, wow. You’re studying satire? That’s very topical. You must have a lot of material to work with.” There is a way in which this is true, though I suspect in a way that diverges from the way that most of my interlocutors believed. I suspect that the material they imagined (...) me to be working with was the output of Donald Trump, first a candidate for and now holder of the office of President of the United States. That is not the material I find interesting. More interesting to me is their statement. It evinces a number of beliefs that I find interesting, chief among them that Trump makes the current period particularly apt for satire, as if a doddery and incompetent ruling class is somehow a recent phenomenon. And I suspect that underneath this belief in the aptness of satire is a belief in the power of satire. Satire is somehow how people are going to strike back at the vice-governed fools who rule us. Those beliefs are the material I want to work with. This is my interest in satire, then: not so much what it is about satire that makes it powerful, but what is it about satire that makes people think it is powerful? And what is it about satire that makes people think it is powerful when there is pretty powerful evidence that it is not? Unfortunately, here is where I run into the problem that in a very important way I do not have a lot of material to work with. There is not an awful lot on satire within the analytic tradition: outside of a few references to satire, analytic discussions of satire are limited to two short articles. Accordingly, I have taken the task of my dissertation to be to create an account of satire that helps to bring forward why satire is a thing that people can imagine to be powerful, that they can imagine to be politically effective. My dissertation will effectively have two halves, one where I build my account and one where I begin to apply it. The purpose of applying my account, which will comprise the final two chapters, will not be to show its implications so much as how it can be used. My goal will not so much be to give definitive answers about the nature of satire, but rather to give a demonstration of how my account facilitates engaging questions about the role of satire in social and political context. (shrink)

Shaftesbury développe, au début du XVIII e siècle, une philosophie de « l'humeur » qui s'inscrit dans l'élaboration très britannique de la notion d'humour. Entre satire et humour, il propose une théorie de la « bonne humeur », opposée à l'humeur noire, atrabilaire ou mélancolique, inspirée à la fois du théâtre élisabéthain et de la mise en discussion des origines littéraires et philosophiques de la satire. At the beginning of the XVIIIth Century, Shaftesbury develops a philosophy of « (...) humour » which is in keeping with the very British inquiry on the notion of humour . Between satire and humour, he propounds a theory of « good humour » opposed to ill, atrabilious or melancholic humour, both coming from the Elizabethan Drama and the discussion of the philosophical and literary origins of satire. (shrink)

These lines, presented as they appear in the O.C.T., are among the most difficult and hotly disputed that Juvenal wrote. The poet defends his decision not to attack contemporary politicians directly: ‘expose a Tigellinus’, he says, ‘and you know what the consequences will be’. It has long been recognized that the consequences related are probably inspired by those suffered by the Christians in A.D. 64 during the reign of Nero, and so vividly described by Tacitus.

The purpose of this note is to defend the following reading, offered by a minority of manuscripts, at Sat. 6.6. Even if the evidence of the manuscripts showed merely that egregius… senes was an eleventh-century conjecture which gained a very moderate degree of acceptance, the reading would still have much to commend it.

It is intended that a large Academy be erected, capable of containing nine thousand seven hundred forty and three persons, which, by modest computation, is reckoned to be pretty near the current nu...