Philosophers are humourless gits
I would like to talk about humour in philosophy. Seriously.
However, I am betting this will be dispatched to the Lounge in the twitch of a lip. With a roll of the eyes, a raised eyebrow and a bored 'Really?' :roll: :brow: :yawn:
A sense of humour helps make life bearable.
Philosophy can play its part. But which philosopher is a joker or who has the most twisted, dark way of looking at the world. Dark humour works.
I once told someone that reading Nietzsche made me feel depressed. He was astonished, responding to my angst with an 'Au contraire, he makes me laugh my socks off !'
Really?
Perhaps it depends on where you're at in the mood spectrum, your personality or your general view of the existentialists. And the notion of the absurd. Is philosophy itself absurd ?
Anyway, if you wanna get the lowdown on the philosophy of humour, here comes Plato, who else ?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/humor/
'..Martian anthropologists comparing the amount of philosophical writing on humor with what has been written on, say, justice, or even on Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance, might well conclude that humor could be left out of human life without much loss.
The second surprising thing is how negative most philosophers have been in their assessments of humor. From ancient Greece until the 20th century, the vast majority of philosophical comments on laughter and humor focused on scornful or mocking laughter, or on laughter that overpowers people, rather than on comedy, wit, or joking. Plato, the most influential critic of laughter, treated it as an emotion that overrides rational self-control.'
Plato wants state controlled comedy. Now that is interesting, given today's current authoritarian regimes and a would-be be dictator's lack of humour. Sad.
Similar to Plato's negative outlook on humour:
'...Though Aristotle considered wit a valuable part of conversation (Nicomachean Ethics 4, 8), he agreed with Plato that laughter expresses scorn. Wit, he says in the Rhetoric (2, 12), is educated insolence. In the Nicomachean Ethics (4, 8) he warns that “Most people enjoy amusement and jesting more than they should … a jest is a kind of mockery, and lawgivers forbid some kinds of mockery—perhaps they ought to have forbidden some kinds of jesting.” The Stoics, with their emphasis on self-control, agreed with Plato that laughter diminishes self-control. Epictetus’s Enchiridion (33) advises “Let not your laughter be loud, frequent, or unrestrained.” His followers said that he never laughed at all.'
The Superiority Theory
...we have a sketchy psychological theory articulating the view of laughter that started in Plato and the Bible and dominated Western thinking about laughter for two millennia. In the 20thcentury, this idea was called the Superiority Theory. Simply put, our laughter expresses feelings of superiority over other people or over a former state of ourselves.'
'...Remarkably few philosophers have even mentioned that humor is a kind of play, much less seen benefits in such play. Kant spoke of joking as “the play of thought,” though he saw no value in it beyond laughter’s stimulation of the internal organs...'
In conclusion, most philosophers are humourless gits.
If you want to lighten the load, if only for an instant, then don't read philosophy.
Take in a cartoon:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/05/look-life-is-really-tough-even-when-it-isnt-youre-allowed-to-feel-shit
Is your liver loving it ?
However, I am betting this will be dispatched to the Lounge in the twitch of a lip. With a roll of the eyes, a raised eyebrow and a bored 'Really?' :roll: :brow: :yawn:
A sense of humour helps make life bearable.
Philosophy can play its part. But which philosopher is a joker or who has the most twisted, dark way of looking at the world. Dark humour works.
I once told someone that reading Nietzsche made me feel depressed. He was astonished, responding to my angst with an 'Au contraire, he makes me laugh my socks off !'
Really?
Perhaps it depends on where you're at in the mood spectrum, your personality or your general view of the existentialists. And the notion of the absurd. Is philosophy itself absurd ?
Anyway, if you wanna get the lowdown on the philosophy of humour, here comes Plato, who else ?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/humor/
'..Martian anthropologists comparing the amount of philosophical writing on humor with what has been written on, say, justice, or even on Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance, might well conclude that humor could be left out of human life without much loss.
The second surprising thing is how negative most philosophers have been in their assessments of humor. From ancient Greece until the 20th century, the vast majority of philosophical comments on laughter and humor focused on scornful or mocking laughter, or on laughter that overpowers people, rather than on comedy, wit, or joking. Plato, the most influential critic of laughter, treated it as an emotion that overrides rational self-control.'
Plato wants state controlled comedy. Now that is interesting, given today's current authoritarian regimes and a would-be be dictator's lack of humour. Sad.
Similar to Plato's negative outlook on humour:
'...Though Aristotle considered wit a valuable part of conversation (Nicomachean Ethics 4, 8), he agreed with Plato that laughter expresses scorn. Wit, he says in the Rhetoric (2, 12), is educated insolence. In the Nicomachean Ethics (4, 8) he warns that “Most people enjoy amusement and jesting more than they should … a jest is a kind of mockery, and lawgivers forbid some kinds of mockery—perhaps they ought to have forbidden some kinds of jesting.” The Stoics, with their emphasis on self-control, agreed with Plato that laughter diminishes self-control. Epictetus’s Enchiridion (33) advises “Let not your laughter be loud, frequent, or unrestrained.” His followers said that he never laughed at all.'
The Superiority Theory
...we have a sketchy psychological theory articulating the view of laughter that started in Plato and the Bible and dominated Western thinking about laughter for two millennia. In the 20thcentury, this idea was called the Superiority Theory. Simply put, our laughter expresses feelings of superiority over other people or over a former state of ourselves.'
'...Remarkably few philosophers have even mentioned that humor is a kind of play, much less seen benefits in such play. Kant spoke of joking as “the play of thought,” though he saw no value in it beyond laughter’s stimulation of the internal organs...'
In conclusion, most philosophers are humourless gits.
If you want to lighten the load, if only for an instant, then don't read philosophy.
Take in a cartoon:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/05/look-life-is-really-tough-even-when-it-isnt-youre-allowed-to-feel-shit
Is your liver loving it ?
Comments (100)
:smile:
Yeah, I know.
It's like saying philosophers are sexless gits because sex is not their chosen topic.
:grin: I couldn't possibly comment but...playing with Kant...
'Remarkably few philosophers have even mentioned that [s]humor[/s] sex is a kind of play, much less seen benefits in such play. Kant spoke of [s]joking[/s] poking as “the fore play of thought,” though he saw no value in it beyond [s]laughter's[/s] sensual stimulation of the [s]internal[/s] external organs...'
In principle, the subject matter is fine as a serious philosophical topic. (Or a scientific one).
Phew! So glad :cool: you're not mad :naughty:
Talking of which...
Mad magazine, a US institution famous for the grinning face of jug-eared, tiny-eyed mascot Alfred E Neuman, is to stop being a regular fixture of newsstands
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/jul/04/the-end-of-satire-mad-magazine-to-cease-regular-publication
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_(magazine)
'In 1994, Brian Siano in The Humanist discussed the effect of Mad on that segment of people already disaffected from society:
For the smarter kids of two generations, Mad was a revelation: it was the first to tell us that the toys we were being sold were garbage, our teachers were phonies, our leaders were fools, our religious counselors were hypocrites, and even our parents were lying to us about damn near everything. An entire generation had William Gaines for a godfather: this same generation later went on to give us the sexual revolution, the environmental movement, the peace movement, greater freedom in artistic expression, and a host of other goodies. Coincidence? You be the judge.[33]
...Pulitzer Prize-winning art comics maven Art Spiegelman said, "The message Mad had in general is, 'The media is lying to you, and we are part of the media.' It was basically ... 'Think for yourselves, kids.'" William Gaines offered his own view: when asked to cite Mad's philosophy, his boisterous answer was, "We must never stop reminding the reader what little value they get for their money!"
'Think for yourselves, kids.' Love that philosophy. And ask the right questions.
Also, I would add use humour wisely. Recognise both the positive and negative aspects of it.
I never read 'Mad'. So I won't miss it.
Is American humour so very different from British ? Is there such a thing as a national sense of humour ?
Is there a change in appetite for political satire ? Has it lost its bite, its philosophical power to critically engage ?
The message of madness is going, going,....
Hey, thanks for answering the deeply philosophical question of:
'What is a git?'
:nerd:
Yeah, I was bummed out hearing that.
On the other hand, I hadn't bought Mad regularly for quite some time, so I was part of the problem. Although in my case, it's primarily because I didn't run across it in stores very often--although that's partially my fault, too, as I probably could have found a store that regularly carried it and made sure that I visited. But also for whatever reasons, I have ridiculous problems with trying to receive magazines via subscription in the mail. I've tried to subscribe to various things, and in all cases, at least living where I live, I'd be lucky to even get 20% of the issues for a year. So I don't bother subscribing to anything because it's pretty pointless and frustrating.
I was also a fan of Cracked when it was simply a knockoff of Mad magazine. But obviously Cracked died over ten years ago now and the owners turned it into that click-baity/not-very-funny website instead.
Never mind, there's always the weekly digest of an anxious depressive John Crace...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/05/at-62-my-life-still-seems-like-a-terrifying-adventure-with-no-instruction-manual
I love that statement! Maybe I'm just a lazy underachiever, but life's early disappointments certainly temper one's expectations a bit.
To be honest, I didn't get or appreciate that final sentence of Monday's digest.
Crace started off well with:
'It’s been a good few days for 15-year-olds. First we had Alex Mann wowing Glastonbury as he rapped on stage with Dave. Then we had Coco Gauffdefeating Venus Williams, a winner of seven grand slam titles, in the first round of Wimbledon. I’m slightly in awe but can’t help wondering where they developed the talent, the confidence and the determination. When I was their age I hadn’t a clue about anything very much and could barely look other people in they eye when talking to them...'
The ending seems a bit warped...
Is he saying they are missing out in not enjoying failure ? Because that is what feeds us...?
Guess I am not in tune with his wit...
Or does he mean that enjoying success so early - It's not such a great thing ?
Proposition: Philosophers are humourless gits
Well, the "Snakes don't have legs and the reason for this OP" thread did get deleted... :sad:
"God is love."
:lol:
You what ? :chin:
Did you read the cartoon I linked to earlier.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/05/look-life-is-really-tough-even-when-it-isnt-youre-allowed-to-feel-shit
I enjoyed Dog's final burble:
'Regardless of how today turned out you did the best that you could, and you can't do any more than that.
Also I love you.'
Dog is Love.
Oh dear. I missed that one :sad:
It was awesome. Fully of snakes and lizards and women with small vaginas.
Also, I promised to pray for someone (coughs @christian2017). But it was not appreciated, and I was politely asked not to.
Dog is indeed love.
But God?
Now that is a joke...
Ah OK. So not funny and not up to the forum's philosophical standards. Understood.
Your objection fails. Funny that.
Maybe you just had to be there. Of course, now you can't. Ever.
I think he's saying that for most of us, we learn not to expect too much from life, but a 15 year old having amazing success might have different expectations. Which may not be how life turns out, because often there are disappointments, tragedies, and failures.
That being said, I would take the success at 15, if I could have been that good at something.
As a kind of holy relic, I saved the OP from Google cache:
Yes. I think you are right. They are exceptional.
How many of us, as he says, develop talent, the confidence and the determination so early?
I think some people know exactly what they, or their parents, want from life - and seem to achieve their aims and goals with hard work, willpower, resilience...call it what you will.
This process is not easy - and I am sure they have their own relative disappointments of which we do not hear. We've all heard the stories of child actors...who grew up...
It just sounded a bit like sour grapes or pouring cold water on enjoyment...he does write just before that he was ' writing this on [his] laptop holed up in [his] bedroom as nowhere else feels quite as safe today'
Do you think there is a certain kind of humour which can only germinate or grow in misery ?
Whoosh :gasp:
That's another Whooosh :gasp:
I was reacting to your claim that philosophers are humourless gits, by providing an example of a pretty good extended joke in a philosophy paper. While it isn't about the philosophy of humour, it's definitely humorous philosophy.
And no, I won't write the post as a joke. :razz:
Not even if I say 'Pretty Please !' and buy you a drink :party:
Beer is please in the language of beer.
Beer, beer, beer !!!
There's a certain kind of humor that goes with having lived long enough as a typical human being. Maybe the Elon Musks and Roger Federers of the world are not privy to such humor.
You cannot be serious ! :rage:
But yeah, the key word being 'typical'. Glad you didn't say 'normal'. I love a bit of madness, me :joke:
To quote the great Homer Simpson:
Life is one crushing disappointment after another, until you just wish Ned Flanders was dead.
Marge: Are you talking to me or the beer?
Homer: To you my bubbly, longnecked, beechwood aged lover.
The role of humour in maintaining a loving, romantic relationship.
Not strictly philosophical but...something to think about...
'Looking deeper into the issue of sexual satisfaction, women appear to have the edge. Women who have humorous partners enjoy more and stronger orgasms, compared to women who have less funny partners.'
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/humor-sapiens/201811/how-humor-can-change-your-relationship
I was once a big fan of Mad Magazine. In the early 1970s I graduated, if that's the right word, to Harvard Lampoon and the National Lampoon. This discussion reminded me of the Mad Magazine parody HL put out in 1971. I can't believe it's that long ago. I remember it, even at the age of 18, as a brilliant parody. I just looked it up on the web. It still holds up pretty well. Here's a link:
http://johnglenntaylor.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-me-funny.html
I'd also like to direct those of you who are newer to the forum to humorous posts put out by one of the best - and funniest - philosophers on the forum. Just search for Philosophy Joke of the Day.
Plato is said to have slept with a copy of the works of the comic poet/playwright Aristophanes under his pillow. Aristophanes was serious and funny.
There is a connection between Socratic humor and irony. Many of Socrates' interlocutors were unaware of the irony of Socrates' responses, which makes it doubly ironic. One must see both that it is and why it is ironic. In the same way one must be able to see both that and why some of his responses are humorous.
Aristophanes appears in Plato's Symposium, where wine and love are mischievously at play. Humor is a form of play, and like other forms of play, there is competition. Here the competition involves making the best speech on love during a drinking competition. It is also a competition between a comic and tragic poet, between philosophy and poetry, and between Aristophanes and Socrates.
Not a very funny post, I know.
Quoting Fooloso4
Insightful as ever :wink:
But it is what I was hoping for.
After I read the SEP article, I couldn't understand the negative focus. I wondered at the reliability of the author.
'...the vast majority of philosophical comments on laughter and humor focused on scornful or mocking laughter, or on laughter that overpowers people, rather than on comedy, wit, or joking. Plato, the most influential critic of laughter, treated it as an emotion that overrides rational self-control.'
Clearly, Plato and others would use their sharp wit in their philosophical practice. To great effect.
Humour is part of the human psyche and comes in all shapes and sizes. Ancient, wise and wonderful thinkers would also have their sly 'digs'...and share scorn. Angels they were not.
Quoting Fooloso4
So, hidden humour played a serious role. As in the competitive Superiority Theory ( same article ) ?
Why downplay or try to control the human aspects of humour. The power of it.
They didn't want others to read between their lines...?
It's the same old reason v emotion argument, isn't it ?
Superior v Inferior.
Just for you :sparkle:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2152/philosophy-joke-of-the-day
You ran out of funnies ? After only 13 pages...
I don't see it that way. It is not that the irony or humor is hidden but that it is just not seen. For us, though, it helps to have certain things brought to our attention that we might not be aware of if all we knew was what we read in the dialogues. Aristophanes' The Clouds, for example, is about Socrates and philosophy.
I do not know about the competitive Superiority Theory, but Socrates was clearly superior both intellectually and morally to many of his interlocutors. The twist though is that many of them thought of themselves as superior. The Theaetetus, for example, is funny because he thinks he is instructing Socrates about piety, but he is clueless. The dialogue ends and it is not clear whether he caught on and confronted his ignorance or if in his ignorance he went on and prosecuted his father as he claimed the gods wanted him to do.
Au contraire! Philosphers can be kinda funny:
Rene Descartes goes up to the counter at Starbucks. “I’ll have a scone,” he says. “Would you like juice with that?” asks the barista. “I think not,” says Descartes, and he ceases to exist.
I followed up your reference of 'The Philosophy of Laughter and Humour' (1986) edited byJohn Morreall.
From Amazon:
Review
There has long been a need for a source book of classical writings on the nature of humor and laughter. The Morreall book fills this long-standing need. In what other single book can one find out what made Hobbes, Descartes, Kant, and Schopenhauer laugh? And in what other book can one learn what they (and many other philosophers) believed to be the essence of laughter?" -- Jeffrey H. Goldstein, Temple University
About the Author
John Morreall is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology. He has written widely in philosophy, religion, and linguistics, and is the author of Taking Laughter Seriously, published by SUNY Press, and Analogy and Talking about God.
Since then he has written another ( possibly based on earlier material ?):
Comic Relief: A Comprehensive Philosophy of Humor (New Directions in Aesthetics) by John Morreall (2009).
From the back cover:
'Western philosophy's traditional assessment of the nature and value of humor has not been kind, as the standard theories made humor look antisocial, irrational, and foolish. It wasn't until well into the twentieth century that humor gained even a semblance of respect. Comic Relief goes a great way toward ameliorating this injustice. In it, noted philosophical humor writer John Morreall develops a comprehensive theory that integrates psychological, aesthetic, and ethical issues relating to humor. He also presents and critiques the standard Superiority, Incongruity, and Relief Theories of humor, revealing how they not only fail to explain its nature, but actually support traditional prejudices against humor. While utilizing elements from traditional theories of humor, Morreall goes into much greater depth about the opposition between amusement and emotions, the cognitive and practical disengagement in humor, the psychological and social benefits of humor, and the comic vision of life itself. He further argues that humor's benefits overlap significantly with those of philosophy, concluding that philosophy's traditional rejection of humor has been an egregious error. Informed by scholarly research, Comic Relief is an enlightening and accessible foray into the serious business of humor.'
I thought this sounded familiar and right enough, one reviewer writes:
'This is a 'comprehensive philosophy,' which means you'll get an expanded version of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article he wrote for 'humor.' '
In an earlier post to Fooloso4, I questioned the author's reliability ( probably meant credibility ).
However, Dr. Morreall has built up an impressive career, based on the philosophy of humour.
His humorworks presentations include real examples, visual materials and interactive
exercises.There is a list of 9 aspects of humour which he sees as a kind of emotional intelligence.
The final 2:
Not all humor is positive. We need to avoid divisive humor such as sarcasm and sexist humor.
Women and men frequently have different approaches to humor. Men’s humor is often competitive, while women’s is usually cooperative. When we understand these and other differences, we can harness the power of humor to benefit everyone.
http://www.humorworks.com/index.php
Heads: The laughing philosopher Democritus
Tails: The weeping philosopher Heraclitus
Seriously speaking there's so much pain in the world laughing would be an insult. I remember parents telling their children not to waste food because starvation kills millions.
On the other hand an old adage claims laughter is the best medicine.
Now, I'm confused. If you don't mind can you untangle this mess?
Why is it not seen ?
It is not seen because it is hidden from view. Not seen due to a cloudy lens of ignorance. Or different perspective...
Perhaps not deliberately as a way to feel superior. But still isn't there a psychological pull to be a head above? The unveiling of meaning in philosophical tomes is a weighty and time-consuming business. Just look at the Wittgenstein threads. I think he would be amused. Probably has something to say on humour too...
It is about competition as you say. Not all play.
I think, as Dr. John Morreall suggests, there is often a gender difference in approaches to humour.
A tendency for men to be competitive, women co-operative.
Perhaps similar to approaches in discussion forums?
Just a thought. The difference between laughing at, and laughing with.
It is a confusion of your own making. Undo it yourself.
I know you can :wink:
There is no doubt. Philosophers can be kinda funny. Hilarious even.
The version of that joke I heard many years ago:
Rene Descartes walks into a bar and orders a drink. When he finishes his drink, the bartender asks him if he would like another. Descartes replies, “No, I think not,” and disappears in a puff of logic.
I found it funny then. Appreciated it because I had just learned about Descartes.
If, out of ignorance, I didn't get it, how humiliating would it have been ?
If someone has to explain a joke, it loses its fun...
Ok. Thanks. :smile:
Sorry, madfool, that was very bad and cruel of me. :naughty: :worry:
What you wrote was interesting but I am off out now and not in the mood for philosophy games. Perhaps we can have more fun later ?
Untangling the tango.. :starstruck:
Comedy distracts.
'Donald Trump wants to be a dictator. It’s not enough just to laugh at him'
by Jonathan Freedland
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/05/donald-trump-dictator-not-enough-laugh
'...the laughter gets in the way. So we snigger at Ivanka Trump ludicrously barging her way into a powwow of world leaders, making a meme of #uninvitedIvanka, rather than confronting head-on the reality that Trump is doing what dictators always do: he’s building a hereditary dynasty, so that his power won’t end with his death. Those images at the G20 looked absurd to us, but they will take their place in the showreel, so that, come the 2024 or 2028 elections, they can be used as proof of Ivanka’s supposed experience on the global stage.'
There's more in this excellent article with its sobering other image framing the 4th July.
The suicidal 4yr old, traumatised and caged, separated from parents in a detention camp, face covered in self-inflicted scratches.
Guess that won't be shown as part of Trump's family business.
By the way, there's another, longer version of the Descartes joke in the resources section of David Chalmers' site ( including Zombies on the Web )
http://consc.net/philosophical-humor/
On a more serious note, and a couple of steps up, there are links to recent Talks @ Google
For example, on 'The Meta-Problem of Consciousness', April 2019.
http://consc.net
So are you still confused about what you wrote ?
What specifically ?
I suspect that many philosophers probably are humorless gits. This is probably associated with their low appreciation of being embodied beings--creatures of flesh and blood with all sorts of drives which which are "in charge" a good share [or all?] of the time. Confidently embodied people understand that their rational facilities are subservient to their emotions--like it or not. (It's emotional drives that sends people to college to study philosophy which foolishly elevates rationality over emotionality.)
To avoid misunderstanding... I'm in favor of people being rational. But we discount and ignore our emotional drives at our peril.
People too wrapped up in their cogitations can't afford to laugh at their ridiculousness.
Harnessed humor is not humor anymore. On TV they try to harness humor using laugh tracks. As someone else said on this thread, humor is play. You can't harness play either. You can stop it, but that's as far as you can go.
I'll respond to your words at the end of this explanatory part.
Apologies: I missed out the quote marks in that part of the post, despite my best intentions. I hope not to take credit for the thoughts of Dr. Morreall. The 'harnessed' comment is at the end. Here it is in full, from
http://www.humorworks.com/index.php
Quoting Dr. Morreall
----
[ just worked out how to make a clear and distinct quote, much better !]
It is not humour that is harnessed. It is the power of it.
As can be seen, humour can be many things, including play.
Play if it involves power can indeed be harnessed. Like all energy or action.
Harness: to control and make use of [ natural resources ].
I think I totally agree with you. But I'm brain dead :groan:
Let's hope that's an exaggeration.
Yes. And perhaps a bit of a humourless, non-facilitating, self-defeating joke.
Perhaps showing a subconscious fear of being that very thing.
Cranking up the brain cells now.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes, many might be. I tend to think that humour, as a sense, is an ingrained part of being a human.
It just goes AWOL at certain times and for various reasons. Both reason and emotion, mental and physical factors involved.
So, we climb down from the title's generalisation to a more qualified, specific scenario of types of philosophers.
Which philosophers might have a 'low appreciation' of having physical drives and who might deny the influence of emotions ? Those steeped in an academic tradition of serious analytical reasoning with little time for frivolous concerns such as 'humour'?
Quoting Bitter Crank
'Confidently' understanding. What stops their reasoning from working out their motivation stems from a basic movement i.e. fear or desire ?
Is it fear itself ?
[In another thread - about Mary Midgley - one of the questions of significance was to ask philosophers what were they most afraid of.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4326/death-of-mary-midgley ]
As to academic study of philosophy, I think that to 'elevate rationality over emotionality' is the essence. 'Emotionality' is not the subject matter. However, they will definitely discuss the old and ancient arguments of reason v emotion. It's important that the interaction of both is recognised.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Glad you're in favour of people being rational. Too bad if you weren't !
Again, all kinds of rationality...including reasons to be cheerful 1, 2, 3.
Is humour an emotional drive ? Or simply an aesthetic sense. A brain management tool ?
Morreall sees it as a kind of emotional intelligence. Wonder how an IQ test would compare to an EQ ?
Apply both to Wittgenstein and stir.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I guess this might mean academic philosophers who have spent their lives in pursuit of some truth via seriously deep study and research. Who might never lift their heads to smell the roses but can appreciate a beer or two. Perhaps a man huddle in a corner of a dingy pub in London. The only consolation in the select few of like attracting like.
Even if they can't distance themselves from their projects, they will still have their humour.
Like Monty Python and the Holy Grail. On a lonely trail.
So, in conclusion:...
It is not true that all philosophers are humourless gits. But some might be, even if they can tell a joke.
Definitions:
A philosopher: a person who philosophises.
To philosophise: what a philosopher does.
A git: an unpleasant, silly, incompetent, annoying, senile, elderly or childish person ( Wikipedia)
[ Edit 9th July to add:
'Git' is usually used as an insult, more severe than twit but less severe than a true profanity like wanker or arsehole, and may often be used affectionately between friends.
'Get' can also be used, with a subtle change of meaning. 'You cheeky get!' is slightly less harsh than 'You cheeky git!'.
https://www.yourdictionary.com/git ]
Humourless: unable to see when something is funny, usually because of being too serious ( some online dictionary )
Humour: isn't just about being funny.
If humour were a glass of beer, philosophers in pubs would be full of it. Or half empty. Or something.
Probably.
Closing down now with special mention to Dr. John Morreall, a non-git philosopher who can do humour with authority and fun and makes lots of money. And all the participants, human or non-human, who helped in the production of this most serious of projects. Who did it for the love of it :hearts: :love:
Cheers :party:
I am reminded of Arthur Koestler's definition: "the systematic abuse of a terminology specially invented for that purpose."
Definitions
Quoting Anil Gupta
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/definitions/
Speaking of definitions, I must admit I'd never heard of a git until you mentioned it. It must be a British insult, probably used with the word bloody. My spell check changes it to got, which means it's not a real word as far as spell check is concerned.
I therefore rule it not a word.
Anticipating you'll object to my ruling on stupidity grounds, I point out that I'm not the first ruling body to delangauge the word. The House of Commons has previously ruled similarly when it ruled the word unparliamentary language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unparliamentary_language. I find myself in good company.
Carry on.
That's what I love about this place - the deep cultural intercourse.
Quoting Hanover
It could be but like you get to choose from specialist sources such as wiktionary, urban dictionary - so many shun-aries. Spoiled for choice really.
Quoting Hanover
Funny the spell-whatever-thingie here changes it to But or bit, or Got depending on its bloody mood.
Ignorant total tosser of a thing.
Quoting Hanover
You know I find that sexy.
And sometimes it's not what you say but the way that you say it. Drawl git again, honey, just for me ?
Quoting Hanover
Hah. Well you got that wrong. But there's nothing quite like anticipation, except perhaps participation.
Oh lookee, attention - more of them shun-words.
Quoting Hanover
The House of Commons or UK Parliament is full of useless tossers and grumpy old gits who use arcane language such as Right Honorable Gentleman when it is apparent there is no such entity.
The Speaker who shouts 'Order! Order!' must have a strong sense of humour.
Words must not offend the dignity of the assembly.
However I believe that a hefty Scotsman got away with calling our probable next Prime Minister, a liar.
Cue bangings on table.
Might be just the job for you, if you like that kinda thing ?
Quoting Hanover
I knew it. Just when a girl says she is closing down, someone comes over all seductive.
Pure gets the lot of ya' :naughty:
When I decreed it publicly (my cat was present), I broke those few words into 55 deep south syllables and spoke with my distinctive drawl, taking a good 10 minutes to finally conclude. I wore my Colonel Sanders outfit, leaving the collar unbuttoned, just to maintain some enticing man sass.
Quoting AmityIs this that sexy bastard?
Henri Bergson - Laughter
Alenka Zupancic - The Odd One In
Simon Critchley - On Humor
Terry Eagleton - Humor
Yves Cusset - Laughter: Tractatus Philo-Comicus
The work of Georges Bataille in general.
Heraclitus (weeping philosopher) (535 BCE - 475 BCE)
Democritus (laughing philosopher) (460 BCE - 370 BCE)
Can you tell me why two philosophers from the same region, Greece, born no more than 15 years apart, have diametrically opposite points of view? Why was Heraclitus sad and Democritus happy? What happened in Greece within those 15 years, 475 BCE to 460 BCE, that made some weep and others laugh?
Does this apply to any age or period? Are such contradictory reactions, joy and sorrow, valid irrespective of time?
If yes, then how one views the world is a personal choice isn't it? There's no correct view and we're free to choose whether to laugh or cry and your comment that ''philosophers are humorless gits'' is empty of meaning.
If no, then explain the Democritus-Heraclitus dichotomy and your explanation may be relevant in understanding your own OP.
Thanks. :smile:
A quick response:
1. It would be strange if there were only 2 philosophers who did not have diametrically opposite points of view, at any given time. That is the nature of the beast.
2. If one is happy and the other sad, then there can be a multitude of reasons or causes, including personal, socio-economic, politico-historical.
3. Being joyful or sad, being thoughtful or humourful can vary like the weather, a natural phenomenon.
4. How one views the world likewise. However, philosophy can help dispel or justify beliefs by encouraging careful thought processes in self-examination.
5. The choice is yours to make. However, there are some predispositions to depression or bipolar conditions which can affect how we see the world, no matter its state.
6. If there is no meaning in a claim or statement then there is nothing to discuss.
7. Some philosophers develop a fascination for a particular theme or story, time or theory.
It's all good. Perhaps your fascination with H & D could be further explored and analysed in a dedicated thread...
Ta. I have tried and tried at various points to understand Nietzsche. What specifically puts a smile on your face when reading him ?
Your reading list is bookmarked :smile:
:scream: :monkey:
When I think of Atlanta, I am Gone with the Wind :fire:
Frankly my dear I don't give a damn :broken:
Tomorrow is another day :sparkle:
I haven't read any philosophical work on humor but one thing I find relevant to your question is that some (most/all???) people find trying and difficult circumstances in their past funny in their future. I've heard many people (is it just me?) recounting harrowing events to their friends and having a laugh. Looks like Democritus knew something Heraclitus didn't.
Also what's the connection between humor and happiness? Are they connected so deeply that our ability to experience one of them reflects our disposition in the other. Which is more important? The ability to laugh at jokes, some of which may be ethically suspect like racist jokes, or the ability to feel happiness through understanding.
I saw a movie once where a man is seeking the book of knowledge. Along the way he experiences a lot of difficulties until he arrives at an island, the abode of the book, where everyone is happy. He tries to get to the book but everyone there tries to dissuade him from reading the book, warning him of disappointment. Nevertheless he forces them to let him read the book. They give him the book and when he opens it all he sees is a mirror. At first he's puzzled, then anxious, disappointed until he (supposedly) realizes what the book means. He then laughs at himself, his life and the people on the island. I guess there's a message in there somewhere but I didn't get it.
Atlanta is much the same now as it was in the waning days of the Civil War.
He's funny! He makes fun of everyone and everything, and does it with gusto. He wields sarcasm like a rapier, and it's just deliciously clever humor.
Ah well, if that's it, then that don't impress me much.
Any half-witted, half-humorous, half-drunk forum participant can do that :roll:
So much for the How.
What is the point - or Who is at the point - of his sharp, sarcastic tongue, and Why ?
Where ?
Oh wow. From its ashes...
Should have been renamed Phoenix...oh wait...
The seal of the City of Atlanta actually includes the phoenix for that very reason. Maybe you knew that, or maybe you're just the smartest person in all the world.
Great symbol of renewal that bird. The Greeks and the Romans probably got there first.
You what ?
Because I am trying to pin down one tiny, little, specific example of Nietzschean humour ?
And I get me a rage emoticon too ?
Crikey, you really oughtta swap that scarlet fizzog with its downturned mouth and scowling eyes before the wind changes direction...
It really does not become you.
Try this instead :nerd:
http://djflanagan.blogspot.com/2016/11/nietzsche-humour-and-great-war.html
Nietzsche, Humour and the Great War
Quoting Damian Flanagan
Nope, it was the Atlanta City Council that first used that bird. They thought it up themselves.
Ah, so that's what they get paid for. Drawing birds. Was there another one in the running whose beak was too high, or something...
:cool: Creative juices in full flow !
I had been thinking about that list of Dr Morreall and our discussion about his 'harnessing'. Also what he thought we should avoid. Here's the relevant part:
I think he is right in a sense. However, there is a nagging concern that this smacks of censorship.
Sarcasm - most of us have experienced. In my case, from a language teacher at High School.
I loved it. If I could have, I would have relished biting right back in similar spirit, with joy.
However, such was the teacher/student relationship, that would have come with negative consequences. The belt was still in use.
With sarcasm, there is a sharp wit involved which can delight but also cut to someone's core.
Some could be seen as, or feel like, targets or victims of bullying.There was no real way of knowing the effects on individuals, even as we smirked.
The power of humour lies in both the positive and the negative. Perhaps the avoidance of the divisive would limit our growth and understanding of our nature...
I disagree. I think humour can be gentle.
Submissive or cooperative ?
I am trying to think of examples of approaches to humour which are cooperative. Morreall suggests this belongs more in the female sphere. Hmmm...is this a natural division ?
Is it ? I don't think so. Think of a stand up comedy show. Think of how thought processes are involved relating individuals to society and cultural absurdities.To be funny might come naturally to some - they have a talent for quick knee jerk responses.
Others not so much.
Ooooh. Tell that to the mods, I dare ya' :wink:
What would this look like ?
Is it about the Cooperative Principle?
https://glossary.sil.org
The change from a harsh to a kinder sense of the word 'git'.
It doesn't have to be used in a derogatory way.
Just to be clear, when I said earlier that you lot were 'pure gets' it wasn't a typo, it was me being cuddly.
Honest guv :halo:
https://www.yourdictionary.com/git
Following this question...
It would seem that jokes are created by violating Grice's maxims. Who knew ?
https://voidabyss.blogspot.com/2017/05/creating-jokes-by-violating-grices.html
Any thoughts on Grice and humour?
You're right, humor can be gentle. I'm trying to get to something I didn't express well. Maybe it's that humor has to be subversive. It has to undermine something - an expectation, a requirement, status, convention.
Cooperative and gentle humor would be if perhaps you were having a hard day, so I pushed your nose and said "Pookie is gonna be ok" in a baby voice. That'd cheer you right up.
I can debate you on that.
But no, seriously, I get what you're saying. They don't call it "The Comedy Forum" for a reason.
:rofl:
Oh yeah, baby. That would do it. For sure.
If that has worked for you and partner in real life, then fantastico :cool:
Alternatively, you could tell a joke. Distract and deliver.
http://www.laughfactory.com/jokes/sexist-jokes
Handle humour with great care !
https://www.webmd.com/balance/news/20090820/good-jokes-cure-bad-moods
I think that a Cooperative aspect is that you need to get a feel whether something will work for that person, given the circumstances. Otherwise a not so gentle jab to the genitals might be the response to your jokey gesture :joke:
Of course, that might be just what you are looking for ? :gasp:
Bring it on Mr.Crowley. Let's see what you got.
Welcome to TPF :smile:
I haven't watched this yet - but might be fun...
Watch "11: Layers of meaning - Cooperation, humour, and Gricean Maxims (Intro to Pragmatics)" on YouTube
https://youtu.be/dw46d7I9AEs
A humor expert, yeah, that's a thing.. I'm a sadness expert and I help people understand what makes them cry. I used to be a meh expert.
A funnier joke would be for the Alzheimer's patient who was just diagnosed to say, "Well at least I don't have Alzheimer's." Of course, maybe they'd be joking or not, who really knows?
But what you can say is very dependent upon the person. Like when my brother called me and told me that he and his wife of 13 years were getting a divorce, I asked for her number, considering she was now single.
See what I'm saying Pookie Wookie Shmookie?
See you Jimmy - yer heid's fou o' mince.
Ye need tee haud yer wheesht and skedaddle aff, ya bampot ye.
Seriously tho' - ah luvs ya, ma wee Tootsie, Wootsie, Schmootzie :love:
Gaelic Schmaelic :roll:
Dummkopf, Schmoommkopf, Donner and Blitzen.
Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera...