Dustin Peone

We have a received idea of Descartes that portrays the man as a serious-minded individual and holds that his metaphysics (particularly as presented in the Discourse and the Meditations) is in absolute earnest. In this paper, I challenge these assumptions. I begin with the question, Is earnestness essential for philosophy? After arguing that it is not, I proceed to expound a new view of Descartes that characterizes him as a cheerful man and a laughing philosopher. In this view, his metaphysics is to be read as a great joke. I say that the entirety of the Cartesian quest for “certainty” ultimately serves the function of demonstrating what everyone already knew, and that several of its key points—namely, the cogito ergo sum and the wicked demon—are in fact comedic devices. The Meditations in particular take on a different light when read with a sense of humor. I understand Descartes’s approach to be that of an eirôn, who must mask his true feelings beneath the appearance of “right opinions” in order to live quietly and avoid persecution. To emphasize the wry humor of Descartes does not, however, invalidate his philosophy or suggest that he is a deceiver or hypocrite. Instead, it changes our perspective on what he means and why he presents things as he does.

Dustin Peone argues that memory is the foundation of philosophical thought. This may seem strange to the contemporary reader, but it is something that philosophers themselves have known since before Socrates. Peone advocates a doctrine of “memory as philosophy” that ties philosophical recollection back to the wisdom of the Muses, daughters of Memory, who sing of “what was, is, and shall be.” Part One draws on the work of philosophers from Cicero to Vico to Bergson to articulate the meaning and significance of memory. Peone understands memory not merely in its psychological sense, but as the key to metaphysical and moral thinking. Part Two takes up the philosophical history of memory. Peone gives an overview of its role as both a speculative and technical instrument from ancient Greece through Renaissance Europe. Then with the rise of modernity and the critical philosophy of Descartes, the memory tradition falls into disrepute. Why did this happen? Was it accidental? Is a philosophical system grounded in memory possible after Descartes? In the final chapters, Montaigne and Hegel are analyzed as practitioners of “memory as philosophy” in the modern world.

Contemporary philosophy has adopted an increasingly tragic point of view. Tragedy, though, is only a partial truth of the human condition. Comedy is another partial truth. The nature of human existence is neither wholly the one nor the other, but tragi-comic. Philosophy must be attuned to both despair and laughter if it is to understand its own world. In Making Philosophy Laugh, the philosopher Dustin Peone makes an apology for the comic side of existence and its use in philosophy. He demonstrates the social and moral uses of humor and analyzes its significance for speculative thinking. Folly and irony are shown to be vital facets of dialectical philosophy. The reader is introduced to the comical side of Socrates and Homer, Descartes and Vico, Kant and Hegel, and many others. Finally, a doctrine of the tragi-comic sense of life is presented that does justice to all aspects of human existence and liberates the spirit from the grimness of serious thought.

Giambattista Vico says that the “key” to his Scienza nuova is his discovery of “imaginative universals.” These are the poetic archetypes that serve to orient human thought and action in the earliest ages of nations. Jove, Hercules, Achilles, and Ulysses are the examples that Vico uses most often. In this paper, I wish to consider an imaginative universal that does not fit the pattern of the others: Torquato Tasso’s Godfrey, whom Vico calls the “true captain of war.” This is one of the rare instances when Vico turns to the work of a near-contemporary poet rather than an ancient. Why does Vico invoke Godfrey amongst his universals? I propose three different approaches to interrogating this figure. First, I examine Tasso in reference to Vico’s other sublime poets, Homer and Dante. Second, I examine the character of Godfrey in contrast to the other captains of war Vico might have chosen, Agamemnon and Cesare Borgia. Finally, I consider the structure of the Vichian ricorso in general and where the Gerusalemme liberate fits into Vico’s doctrine of three ages.