In the next few sections I will engage deeper with Lear's work and problematize some of its aspects. However, before getting to that I shall make a few remarks concerning the overall trajectory of this work and the methodology that I will employ.
As discussed above, Lear holds that to understand irony is something that gives us insight into the human condition. Accordingly, the goal of this work will be to conmpare and test the three accounts of irony expressed by Lear, Nietzsche, and Kierkegaard, along with their respective descriptions of the human condition. This enquiry will not be a simply descriptive one, but rather it will aim to establish whether any of these three accounts is more sound than the other two. Furthermore, if to practice irony is a way of practicing philosophy, then the present discussion shall involve the three models of philosophical practice developed by these authors.…show more content… This, is presented by Taylor while comparing the vocabulary of phenomenology and that of the natural sciences, trying to assess which one best describes a person's experience of being in the world. In this respect, Taylor argues for the BAP as a way of choosing between the two. Regarding this principle of inquiry, he writes that '[…] to "make sense" of our lives […] the terms we select have to make sense across the whole range of both explanatory and life uses. The terms indispensable for the latter are part of the story that makes best sense of us, unless and until we can replace them with more clairvoyant substitutes'1. In other words, when trying to make sense of the human condition, we should employ the vocabulary which seems to give the best account of our actual