Plato: Irony and Playfulness by Karl Jaspers, The Great Philosophers, Vol I, pp. 26-28 If Socratic irony could be replaced by direct communication, there would be no need for it. A proper indirect meaning of irony requires not only practice in rational thinking but also training in philosophical sensibility. This irony is varied and complex. The intermingling of truth and falsehood, the ambiguity that can become truth only for those who hold the key to it, must lead to constant misunderstanding. Plato seems to say: Let those who cannot understand misunderstand. Sometimes there seems to be anger beneath the frothy surface. In this communication where rationality ceases, understanding cannot be forced by rational arguments. In profound irony there is concern for the genuine truth. It deters us from supposing that we possess the truth in object knowledge, in the work, in the figure, which, magnificent as they may be, become untrue the moment we take them as absolutes. An ambiguous irony can quickly lose its profound meaning. Without meaning of its own, it becomes an instrument of destruction, the language of nihilism. Laugher kills. This irony follows the principle of 'Gorgias: answer the ridiculous with seriousness, the serious with ridicule. This irony discloses nothing but nothingness. It is not the self-effacing language of the Eros, but a weapon serving the power of nothingness. Directed against all seriousness as such, it is the groundless warfare of a tumultuous non-being. Philosophical irony, on the other hand, expresses the certainly of a fundamental meaning. Perplexed by the discrepancy between the simplicity of rational discourse and the ambivalence of appearances, it strives to attain the truth, not by saying it but by awakening it. it strives to give an intimation of the hidden truth, whereas nihilistic irony is empty. In he whirl of appearances, philosophical irony strives to lead, by true disclosure, to the e\ineffable presence of the truth, whereas empty irony leads from the whirl of appearances to nothingness. Philosophical irony is a diffident fear of directness, a safeguard against he direct misunderstanding that is total. All this is to be found in Plato's dialogues. here we find irony on three levels. First there is the obvious irony, the fierce falsehood with which Socrates leads his opponent up a false track, or graciously spares his feelings, or delivers a cutting attack. On the next level we find the attitude of fundamental irony by which Socrates seeks to provoke the knowledge of nonknowledge (genuine incommunicable knowledge over finite knowledge). At the highest level, Plato creates a general atmosphere of betweenness; this irony resides in the absolute ambiguity of all finite, determinate things. It is only in this ambiguity, this total irony where everything loses its fixity, that the heart of being discloses itself. Ideas and myths are like arrows shot off toward the realm where even the name of being must vanish. Discursive philosophy merely explores possibilities along the way. it is earnest - not with the dark earnestness of the dogmatic possessor of the truth or the angry earnestness of nihilistic mockery, but with the earnestness of freedom (eleutheriotes), which can perfectly well be playful. Two examples may give an idea of this total irony in which Plato includes himself: Speaking of literature, he ironically disparages his own activity as a philosophical writer. His own literary works, he declares, are not the seed, which is what he takes seriously, but mere bowers of Adonis (baskets of flowers for the festival of Adonis), planted in play and quick to fad; while others distract themselves with other pleasures, he amuses himself for a moment watching his plants sprout. There is always an element of play in the written word, he says, and never was a word written or spoken, in poetry or prose, that deserved to be taken quite seriously. All men's occupations are viewed in an ambiguous light. "Human affairs are hardly worth considering in earnest, and yet we must be in earnest about them," thought there is no great happiness to be derived from it. Only the serious deserves to be taken seriously. That is God. Man is God's artfully constructed toy, and that is the most a man can aspire to be. Consequently, men and women should do nothing but play the best possible games. For the most part we are mere puppets in the hands of the gods, with only the barest fragment of truth and reality. When, having spoken these words, he was accused of holding the human race in very low esteem, he replied, "Forgive me: - I was comparing them with the gods, and under that feeling I spoke." In this light, mankind is deserving of a certain respect. Thus in this irony of his disillusionment with men, men are puppets only in comparison with the gods. And this irony has its limits; an area is left open for man.