The philosophy of humor

Wittgenstein:A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes.

Reply to IvoryBlackBishop

Its such a difficult thing to have knowledge about because laughter is involuntary. Whatever processes humour triggers to cause laughter or amusement are largely sub-conscious, maybe entirely. Even comedians, our experts on humour have only a tentative grasp on what makes people laugh and they do that mostly through trial and error.
I think your comparison to art is apt. Good comedy is an art form. I also agree that there are objective elements, common traits to all humour, or certain kinds of humour at least. Some things get a laugh out of just about anyone. Its just very hard to parse out exactly what those traits are.

If philosophers spent the same amount of time writing about the philosophy of humour as they did about ethics, then I think we would be much better off. Yet another indication that philosophy is dead.

Reply to Pussycat

In what way is it dead?

Quoting IvoryBlackBishop

So far, this book is the only one that I've read on the subject, I do believe that there are others as well.

Aristotle wrote the book on humor in the Poetics : contrasting Tragedy with Comedy. Everything since has been footnotes to Aristotle. In his discussion of rhythm & meter he even anticipated the modern comedian's summary : "it's all in the timing". But the basic distinction between Tragedy & Comedy is the attitude of the observer : when a slap-stick Marx Brother gets poked in the eye, his tragedy is my comedy. :cool:

Reply to DingoJones Oh, in many ways, I reckon. Take humour for example. Why is there so little on this topic? On the metaphysics of humour I mean, its ontology, where are they, what is humour and in what ways is it triggered? (philosophically speaking) But if you look at ethics, you will find a vast amount of works. Its like philosophy is at odds with humour and laughter, taking itself toooo seriously in this cosmic joke we are living.

Reply to IvoryBlackBishop

As an aside, we should remember that laughter doesn't arise only out of humor, but it also appears in the most egregious cases of bullying and torture. Sadly, one can be humored by violence and subjugation.

Reply to Pussycat

You said lack of philosophy on humour was “yet another” reason philosophy is dead. What are the other reasons?

Reply to DingoJones ha, you are very perceptive, although I said indication, not reason. Anyway, a rather good reason for philosophy being dead is the complete lack of music in works of philosophy, now this is a very good reason, indeed. Humour, maybe we can do without, but music, as well as poetry, we cannot.

Quoting IvoryBlackBishop

I've yet to see anything akin to a "grand unified theory" or humor, or how humor relates to art and aesthetics

If we say all humor is connected to the concept of irony, does that get us anywhere? That is the only "universal" I can think of related to humor. And even that is questionable...although I can't think of any humor that doesn't fit. Even peek-a-boo elicits a hearty laugh from babies who did not expect that face to come out of nowhere.

The difficulty in bringing humour into philosophical writings is that it is inherently ambiguous, the author may be making a valid point but identifying exactly what the point is would be ambiguous.

That said, a humour is important as it typically presents an alternative viewpoint from a strictly and supposedly logical argument.

Religions generally abhor humour as it can expose the absurdity of their tenets.

Quoting A Seagull

Religions generally abhor humour as it can expose the absurdity of their tenets.

I agree with that notion.

People who can't laugh at themselves are scary. Can you imagine a laughing suicide bomber?

Quoting Athena

Can you imagine a laughing suicide bomber?

Lol

Quoting Pussycat

?DingoJones ha, you are very perceptive, although I said indication, not reason. Anyway, a rather good reason for philosophy being dead is the complete lack of music in works of philosophy, now this is a very good reason, indeed. Humour, maybe we can do without, but music, as well as poetry, we cannot.

Well, I didn't quote you as saying “reason” :wink:

Those things you mentioned may be missing from philosophy, but wouldnt that mean philosophy never lived at all rather died?
Also, there is no reason philosophy cannot be applied to those things is there? So are you talking about the limits philosophy, or philosophers?

Quoting DingoJones

Well, I didn't quote you as saying “reason”

haha, true, true, I guess you are off the hook then.

Quoting DingoJones

Those things you mentioned may be missing from philosophy, but wouldnt that mean philosophy never lived at all rather died?

Yeah, it might mean that as well, either that it was never born - so how can it die??! - or that it was born, lived a little, and then died, like those infants with various conditions, not living much, or living on borrowed time, not having the chance to amount to anything in life, like they were just born to die.

Quoting DingoJones

Also, there is no reason philosophy cannot be applied to those things is there? So are you talking about the limits philosophy, or philosophers?

What limit, the sky's the limit, like they say. And yes, I see no reason why philosophy cannot be applied to those things, as you say. But of course philosophers will bite and won't bite.

Reply to Pussycat

So I wonder why they havent bitten. Maybe the subject just isnt that philosophically rich, there is less space for philosophy to operate when the subject matter either has very little grey area (like math or most science) or way too much grey area (like music or art with a huge subjective component).

Reply to DingoJones Dunno why, maybe because there is no bait, or maybe because they are disinterested in this sort of bait, eg some cheese, which is nevertheless mouldy. Anyway, this is getting off-topic so I'll stop here.

Reply to DingoJones
I can't "prove" this assertion, but from what I've observed, humor usually relates to subjects which we consider "beneath" us (e.x. people making mistakes, or acting in a foolish way), while "art" relates to things we consider beautiful, inspiring or "above" us.

For a philosophy of humor you would first need a philosophy of humorlousness:

For many, especially the young, discovering a new meaning in the midst of the fallen world is thrilling. And social-justice ideology does everything a religion should. It offers an account of the whole: that human life and society and any kind of truth must be seen entirely as a function of social power structures, in which various groups have spent all of human existence oppressing other groups. And it provides a set of practices to resist and reverse this interlocking web of oppression — from regulating the workplace and policing the classroom to checking your own sin and even seeking to control language itself. I think of non-PC gaffes as the equivalent of old swear words. Like the puritans who were agape when someone said “goddamn,” the new faithful are scandalized when someone says something “problematic.” Another commonality of the zealot then and now: humorlessness.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/andrew-sullivan-americas-new-religions.html?utm_source=tw

Reply to IvoryBlackBishop

Not sure I can agree with you there. Art can be dark, or abstract or sad, not “above” us at all. Humour can be self deprecating, or ironic, or clever...things I wouldnt consider “below” us.
You stated that like a dichotomy aa well, like art and humour are two sides of the same coin but Id say they pretty freely intermingle. Art can be funny, funny can be art. Sometimes both at the same time.
Certainly what you observe is true of some humour and art though.

The philosophy of humour has its very own Stanford encyclopaedia entry by John Morreall. Plenty of philosophers have wondered about humour; most unexpectedly, Thomas Aquinas. Humour involves play and incongruity, the recognition and upturning of norms. It’s bound to be a worrying phenomenon for sensible philosophical types. Perhaps its time has come. If the world has become absurd enough for more people to get the joke.

Quoting The Codex Quaerentis: On Rhetoric and the Arts

A sort of mirror image of beauty, I hold, is drama, by which I mean an umbrella category encompassing both comedy and tragedy. The common factor to comedy and tragedy, and what I hold makes drama like a mirror image of beauty, is that while beauty is about experiences of something seeming in some way right, comedy and tragedy are both experiences of something seeming in some way wrong. The distinguishing difference between comedy and tragedy is how they approach that wrongness: comedy approaches it frivolously, with levity, making light of whatever is wrong; while tragedy approaches it seriously, with gravity, taking the wrong thing to be a weighty matter. This wrongness can be of either a descriptive or prescriptive kind, just like the rightness of beauty can be. I think this is best illustrated in the wide varieties of comedy, ranging from slapstick (where people experiencing physical violence is treated lightly instead of as a matter of grievous injury) and roasts or other jokes explicitly at someone's expense (that are treated as an acceptable transgressions of social norms), which are both making light of prescriptively bad things; to jokes that hinge on setting up and then subverting expectations (where something that was thought to true turns out to be false), including postmodern comedy that violates medium conventions such as breaking the fourth wall, and even things like puns where the wrongness is just the use of the wrong word in place of the expected one. All comedy hinges on something being, in some way or another, wrong, and yet treated as not a big deal. Tragedy, on the other hand, depicts something being in some way wrong, and makes a big deal out of it being wrong. Both of them are, for that wrongness that they depend on, in some way un-beautiful. Yet both can nevertheless be, in the end, beautiful in their own way. Comedy, in making light of bad things, shows them as not so bad, and so correspondingly good, at least relatively speaking, and thereby beautiful in a way. And tragedy, in treating bad things as weighty matters, can speak hard truths about bad experiences that people can really have, and so, for that truth, also be beautiful in a way.

Reply to IvoryBlackBishop I remember asking in the old forum, which has sadly collapsed, the following question:

Why is it that a carnivore's teeth-baring snarl looks uncannily similar to a human smile? In both cases the mouth is opened and the primary weapon of carnivores, teeth, fangs and all, are revealed and displayed. Can I take a soldier pointing his AK-47 at me as humorous? Is it then humorous for me to pull out my own gun and point it at the soldier?

Purely speculative, but I always viewed laughter as a socially acceptable way to express pleasure that would otherwise be viewed as unacceptable. This could explain why comedy can become dated as cultural norms change. Also, what we often find to be humorous are things that are offensive, taboo, controversial, painful, embarrassing, “sinful” desires, etc. In this way, I think laughter is a natural act that humans, being social creatures, could perform without risking being ostracized from the tribe. Therefore, humor arose from this phenomena as a pathway for others to gain acceptance and/or stature within the group as well. Those of us who could laugh at unfortunate events (pain, embarrassment, etc.) as a way to express the pleasure witnessing them caused, as opposed to actually causing the events themselves, were more likely to be accepted by the group. The involuntary act of laughter was then exploited by those who were good at making people laugh as a way to gain acceptance within the group.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting Deleted user

Despite claims of the contrary, "woke" derives at least half from the Frankfurt school, of Marxist basis. Some believe that Neo-Marxism is antithetical to religion, especially Christianity; it may be so, but for me Neo-Marxism is the polluted sea of modernity where the river of Christianity leads to, one is the conclusion of the other. Victimism and disingenuity is a core tenet of both.

The Frankfurt school is a pretty big tent, including figures
as diverse as Adorno and Habermas. Wokism dips into certain aspects of neo-Marxism, including Gramsci, who is closer to classical Marxism than someone like Adorno. Like all popular movements, wokism has its zealots, but I’m not sure what it would mean to call Marxism and its progeny disingenuous. Its philosophical contributions have been acknowledged by many 20th and 21st century schools of philosophy. The only ones rejecting the philosophy in toto are conservatives , who generally haven’t ventured past Kant in their thinking. For them all the troubles, or ‘disingenuousness’, begin with Hegel.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to Deleted user Quoting Deleted user

Karl Marx (1818–1883) is often treated as a revolutionary, an activist rather than a philosopher
— SEP

The question is whether there are any prominent philosophers who dont consider Marx to be a philosopher, and the answer is no.

Quoting Deleted user

Like all popular movements, conservatism has its philosophy deniers, but I’m not sure what it would mean to call conservatives philosophy deniers.

I’m not calling conservatives philosophy deniers , I’m calling conservative philosophers deniers of the validity of post-Hegelian philosophy.
Quoting Deleted user

I would not call NDT a conservative

I would call him someone who doesn’t understand philosophy. This was true of Stephen Hawking as well, but not Heisenberg or Bohr.

Quoting Joshs

I would not call NDT a conservative
— Lionino
I would call him someone who doesn’t understand philosophy.

Maybe he is a p-zombie.

Quoting baker

Maybe he is a p-zombie.

Excellent, a joke, finally in this terribly dry thread on humour. :clap:

Quoting IvoryBlackBishop

Realistically, I do think that there are some objective elements of humor, and that while, in practice, people may find it subjective, that there are probably better or worse ways of viewing and opining on it, akin to art or aesthetic theories

Quoting Pinprick

The involuntary act of laughter was then exploited by those who were good at making people laugh as a way to gain acceptance within the group.

In the film The Death of Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev is portrayed as a talkative joker who is good at making Stalin laugh. After their meetings Nikita analyses the jokes together with his wife, to clarify what had worked, so that he can maintain or improve the outcome next time, thus reducing the risk of getting Stalin dissatisfied (which at that time could mean a death sentence).

If we compare humour with beauty, it seems fairly clear that both can be exploited and used as means for other things. For example, to seduce, distract, and entertain. Yet beauty is disinterested pleasure, and I think also humour is disinterested pleasure. For example, you can find something funny regardless of whether it is appropriate or useful.

Watch Jerry Seinfeld's Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee. Comedians talking about what is funny, how they construct a funny bit. You see them trying out jokes on each other, just goofing around, showing how they are thinking. Mostly they are just comedians being funny, but you see the art, the science a bit.

A few of them say you can't teach someone how to do what they do. And I agree with that. If you have to explain why a talking fish is funnier than a talking parrot, nothing is going to make sense, unless you already understand it, but then, why the hell did you need an explanation. Seinfeld said he was paid to speak to a group about how to be a comedian, and he said he just told them, "if you are in this class, I've got bad news for you..."

It's a really funny show, and plenty of insight.

And laughing. The comedian truly connecting with the souls of the audience, their minds grasping the words and actions of the comedian, finding some elements of expectation and total surprise, that erupts in an involuntary, physical laugh. I think it is one of the most human things there is. Super meta, and super primal, and everything in between.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I believe this is the logic of humor: It is something we find both valuable and unexpected.

This explains why a new joke is funny, but its funniness rapidly diminishes with familiarity.

It also explains why jokes which some people find funny are offensive to others. For instance, I remember a joke I heard while visiting relatives out of town. A guy said he saw a chain of Obama-voters going to the voting booth with their heads stuck up each others' butts. His friends thought it was funny, but my parents voted for Obama, so they did not think it was funny. I believe this is the logic: the man believed that Obama was bad, and that the conservative tribe was good. So, his joke was in essence a way of saying, "Obama bad. I am in conservative tribe," but he said it in an unexpected and graphic way, so his friends, who shared the same values, thought it was funny. My parents, who had opposite values, thought it was offensive. My mother, however, who hates trump, used to make anti-trump jokes and comments, and to her surprise, this alienated some of her relatives. To give another example, one of my favorite jokes (which I hardly ever share), is, "My pee pee is big enough to fit inside two women at the same time." I believe this is the logic behind why I think it's funny: I have polygamist tendencies (which I've never acted on), and like most men, I like to imagine myself to have sexual prowess. So, when I make this joke, it is a way of expressing this is an impossibly extreme way. My wife, however, who is jealous of my affection, hates this joke, which is why I only ever told it to her once.

I believe humor is an evolutionary way of making us pay attention to important information. Much of humor is social or sexual in nature, because we are hardwired to care about these things.

I read through the previous posts to see if anyone else had already said something similar to what I was going to say. I think this is the closest one.

Quoting mcdoodle

The philosophy of humour has its very own Stanford encyclopaedia entry by John Morreall. Plenty of philosophers have wondered about humour; most unexpectedly, Thomas Aquinas. Humour involves play and incongruity, the recognition and upturning of norms. It’s bound to be a worrying phenomenon for sensible philosophical types. Perhaps its time has come. If the world has become absurd enough for more people to get the joke.

Quoting Brendan Golledge

My pee pee is big enough to fit inside two women at the same time.

Reply to Deleted user

Quoting Deleted user

The prominent philosophers that we know consider Marx to be a philosopher are those that care about him, that is engage with him. Philosophers that draw from Marx are a very small section.

Do you think that Marx is a philosopher?

Quoting Deleted user

Heidegger was conservative, wasn't him? And isn't him one of the namesakes of philosophy after Hegel?

I don’t consider Heidegger a conservative.

Quoting Deleted user

I would call him someone who doesn’t understand philosophy
— Joshs

I doubt NDT understands much. Regardless, he is not conversative — on the contrary, he goes with whatever the current news-approved opinion is — and he consistently denies philosophy

I didn’t say he was a conservative. One doesn’t have to be conservative to misunderstand philosophy.

Quoting Fire Ologist

Watch Jerry Seinfeld's Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee. Comedians talking about what is funny, how they construct a funny bit. You see them trying out jokes on each other, just goofing around, showing how they are thinking. Mostly they are just comedians being funny, but you see the art, the science a bit.

Humour is cultural and subjective. I find Seinfeld about as funny as lung cancer. Contrived humour I generally avoid although in this context I find British comedy more appealing. My idea of hell is having to sit though a stand up comedy show. When I laugh it will ususally be at something spontaneous happening around me, rather than anything manufactured to create laughter.

My take on humour is that is essentially represents some degree of 'short cut'. This might only apply to certain types of humour - But i'll address others a bit further in this post.

Generally, I consider 'humour' to stem from somethign unexpectedly concluding. Think:

Man up a ladder, painting a house. Two possible bits of humour could stem here, immediately:

1. A can of paint falls/tips covering the painter in paint - without going through the boring process of gradually accruing rogue paint from the actual job of painting.
2. The painter could fall down the ladder, to the ground, skipping the boring step of actually using hte ladder.

A second 'issue' i've noted is that there are kind of humour well-represented in a few examples: Monty Python, The Mighty Boosh, Tim & Eric... Hopefully this gets the picture across. These, in contrast, to something like Kevin Hart/Jim Carrey/Michael McIntyre type of comedy.

The former case presents metaphysical jokes. Propositions that cannot be true. "A motorbike made out of jealousy" as an example. Its funny because of its absolute absurdity.

The latter case/s don't present this kind of situation. They present entirely corporeal/physical/psychologically standard situations and inject some unexpected element (as above, around the 'short-cut' idea). Frankie Boyle once stated his style of comedy as "thinking of interesting ways for sentences to end" and that perfectly encapsulates the latter style. The former takes a far higher-level organisational acuity to pick out what was meant to be funny in a sentence that, from word one, made no sense, but did appear to. The joke, it seems, is that you were grammatically/visually/aurally tricked into taking a metaphysical impossibility as possible. It's a 'cosmic joke' type of thing.

Trying to get people who enjoy the latter, to enjoy the former is like pulling teeth. The opposite direction is usually fairly easy to do, in my experience.

However, as an ex-professional comedian, I am likely the nerd on this one and will likely suck the life out of hte concept.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to Deleted user Quoting Deleted user

?s far as I know, he was never a professional philosopher. Other than that, I stand behind what the SEP says; he is better described as a sociologist (pseudo-science) and activist rather than philosopher.
In a sense, couldn't we call Richard Dawkins a philosopher? Yet he is much better described as a biologist.

This is what I got from the SEP:

Karl Marx is often treated as a revolutionary, an activist rather than a philosopher, whose works inspired the foundation of many communist regimes in the twentieth century…However, Marx was trained as a philosopher, and although often portrayed as moving away from philosophy in his mid-twenties—perhaps towards history and the social sciences—there are many points of contact with modern philosophical debates throughout his writings.

Marx wrote the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. “The Manuscripts provide a critique of classical political economy grounded in the philosophies of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Ludwig Feuerbach.”
Compare this with Dawkins, who never formally studied philosophy and didn’t directly incorporate the ideas of philosophers into his approach.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting Deleted user

Most historians agree that Jesus was a historical person (this is a claim that is unfounded, but let's say it is true) because most historians who even engage with the topic are those that have skin in the game.

Im unsure that's true. Bart Erhmann is a prime example of someone who would rather Jesus didn't exist as it would be a smoking gun for his career succeeding.

But he accepts, on the historical evidence, that it's most likely Jesus existed as a human person. It would be a little cynical to conclude the opposite for a lack of photographs ;)

Quoting Deleted user

Hegel

Who could easily, and often is, termed a Mystic. After going through the first 15 episodes of the Cunning Of Geist and scanning all of Spirit in hte last three months, I have to agree. Whether its philosophy is debatable, at best.

Reply to Deleted user

Quoting Mark Cameron

I will argue that at a political and ideological level Heidegger's work can be seen to bear a close relationship to the so-called Conservative Revolution, an intellectual movement that rejected both bourgeois liberalism and communism, and called for an authoritarian nationalism and a spiritual renewal of Germany.

One can’t begin to unravel Heidegger’s political beliefs without mastering his massive philosophical ouvre. Richard Wollin tried to turn Heidegger’s philosophy into a 1930’s style right wing screed after utterly failing to understand his work. Are there conservative elements in his thinking? Yes, but they are intertwined with ideas whose political implications are far removed from both conservativism and liberalism.

Reply to AmadeusD

Quoting AmadeusD

After going through the first 15 episodes of the Cunning Of Geist and scanning all of Spirit in hte last three months, I have to agree. Whether its philosophy is debatable, at best.

You are saying that Hegel’s work is not philosophy?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting Joshs

You are saying that Hegel’s work is not philosophy?

Very much so. It is an attempt at philosophy by a theosopher.

Quoting Deleted user

You have heard of Bart Erhmann because of Christians who bring him up, am I right?

Very wrong.

Quoting Deleted user

Bart is a guy who takes the Bible to be historical evidence, that much is silly.

A feel a cursory scan of Bart's work ensures one that the historicity, or not of the Bible is one of his central tensions. He takes elements that are externally supported, in some way as historical, in light of the external support. I see no issue.

Quoting Deleted user

The fact that the Gospel of Mark mirrors so strongly Jewish Antiquities by Josephus (ironically used by Christians as well) tells you that the new testament is fabricated.

I do not agree. But i am not a theologian.
I would highly, hgihly recommend watching this before responding, if you want to continue about Bart. it seems to contradict your impressions.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to Deleted user

Quoting Deleted user

it seems to me you are jumping through hoops to validate your own political prejudices

Let’s talk about your political prejudices because, tbh, that’s what I’m really interested in here. What do you think of the value of Marx, Antifa, wokeness, intersectionality and other current interests of the political left?

Reply to AmadeusD

Quoting AmadeusD

You are saying that Hegel’s work is not philosophy?
— Joshs

Very much so. It is an attempt at philosophy by a theosopher

I appreciate that Hegel’s mode of thinking is profoundly alien to what you are used to, but I’ve been involved in studying, writing and publishing philosophy most of my adult life, and although Hegel is far from my favorite philosopher , I consider him to be without question among the greatest thinkers of the modern era.

Quoting Deleted user

Sorry but 1 hour about a topic that is not horribly important to me seems a bit much.

Fair enough. We need not care about much :D

Quoting Joshs

profoundly alien to what you are used to

Not at all. His mode of thinking is what I was stuck in for a decade or so. That's why i recognize how ridiculous much of it is. I recognize my own errors in his writing.

Quoting Joshs

I consider him to be without question among the greatest thinkers of the modern era.

You may, and that's fine. Plenty don't. I am one(though, I note, there are others with exception philosophical acumen(not me) who also don't). He is a confused theosopher, to me, who couldn't write a coherent paragraph to save his child.
But, As i take it, you are very much a thinker of the left where writings of Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Zizek and continental philosophy, generally, have a fairly high status. We're just running in dissimilar circles intellectually, I think. I take Lionino's line on Marx too.

Quoting Deleted user

I don't see how the crufixion of Jesus is externally supported.

Then I don't think you've paid cursory attention to the topic.

See also : The Cambridge Companion to Jesus by Tuckett. Historians generally agree it occurred (Our friend Bart, here too).

Quoting Deleted user

It is not about theology.

it is, though. So im unsure why you'd wade into this pretending it isn't. It is squarely theology, and perhaps this is what you've missed. The historicity of Jesus is a study theological in nature, and at the very, very least "biblical scholarship" can't be left off the description. But, in any case, this is actually pretty much settled history.

Reply to AmadeusD

Quoting AmadeusD

As i take it, you are very much a thinker of the left where writings of Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Zizek and continental philosophy, generally, have a fairly high status. We're just running in dissimilar circles intellectually, I think

This is an interesting point, because I see Hegel as a dividing line between political conservativism and today’s progressive liberalism. Andrew Breitbart articulated a similar position:

“A line was becoming clear. Marx and Hegel had paved the way for the Progressives, who in turn had paved the way for the Frankfurt School, who had then attacked the American way of life by pushing “cultural Marxism” through “critical theory.” In the middle of his popular memoir, the American reactionary editor Andrew Breitbart offers a critical appraisal of so-called “critical theory.” As he reflects, “The Frankfurt School thinkers had come up with the rationale for radical environmentalism, artistic communism, psychological deconstruction of their opponents, and multiculturalism. Most of all, they had come up with the concept of “repressive tolerance,” aka political correctness.” Here Breitbart reads a paralyzing structure in what he labels as “critical theory,” pointing to it as the source for the dangerous utopian imaginaries of the contemporary left. In this reflection, critical theory seems to promote a paralysis of thought, limiting discourse by foreclosing the speech of the right.

But as a lawyer, do you also reject the ideas of legal
scholar John Rawls, who was influenced by Hegel?

Reply to Joshs I would say that quotation (and what I take as implications of it, for your views) comports with what I had taken them to (very vaguely) be, so that's cool. I would agree.

While it pains me to do so, I must disabuse you of the notion I am a lawyer - I am a legal professional working towards becoming a lawyer. I am partially qualified and have a cool certificate from a University to that effect - just not an LLB degree. Though, should say, I have more experience than most lawyers i've worked for hehe. In fact, the guy who lent me his textbooks for my first year (he is in his final year and will be a lawyer by August) interviewed for my job last week (I am being internally promoted). So, an odd situation - but please don't take me to be a lawyer!! It would be illegal by my country's laws to hold myself out as such.

Re Rawls: Hmm I wouldn't say so but I do think he posits "morality" where its absolutely unwelcome, in a similar way to Hegel.
That said, I do not take "influence" to be a reason for such a rejection. If Rawls stands on his own, and works Hegel into reasonable insights, that's his success, rather than Hegel's. The Dialectic might be really useful for working through potential legal ramifications of legislation. That would be Rawls' achievement to be proud of.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting Deleted user

Even if you take out all the supernatural elements from the Bible, there is still no evidence to believe those stories happened.

I repeat my first: It seems you haven't actually looked into these discussions past your fairly uninterested (meaning dispassionate) glancings. Your rejections seem to be based on distaste.

At risk of sounding defeated, nothing in your above comment seems to be more than your distaste for either a method or a source. I will remain on the side of the overwhelming consensus of historians.

Lets leave it :)

Reply to AmadeusD

Quoting AmadeusD

If Rawls stands on his own, and works Hegel into reasonable insights, that's his success, rather than Hegel's. The Dialectic might be really useful for working through potential legal ramificati

I understand. It’s just that, for whatever it’s worth, I imagine Rawls protesting vigorously to your characterization of Hegel’s thinking as non-philosophy. I guess how much this matters to you depends on in how high of a regard you hold Rawls’s judgement on such matters.

Quoting Joshs

I imagine Rawls protesting vigorously to your characterization of Hegel’s thinking as non-philosophy

For sure. I estimate some 65% of Philosophers proper would. But I wouldn't shy from that..

Quoting Joshs

depends on in how high of a regard you hold Rawls’s judgement on such matters.

I don't think it should. Rawls is obviously an absolute powerhouse of Legal and Political Philosophy. But whether I take him to be X level of successful in his work shouldn't reflect his influences unless they are seriously direct influences (i.e he was writing about Hegel in his career generally

Reply to AmadeusD

Quoting AmadeusD

But whether I take him to be X level of successful in his work shouldn't reflect his influences unless they are seriously direct influences (i.e he was writing about Hegel in his career generally

…a consistent reference to the Hegelian political philosophy appears in the last writings of Rawls. Only there does Rawls mention his intellectual debt to Hegel. Indeed, the last part of the Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy is devoted to Hegel. These lectures are the last that Rawls gave in Harvard in 1991. In this last chapter on Hegel, Rawls stresses the criticisms Hegel directed at the ‘atomistic’ liberalism of social contract theoreticians and declares that he fully shares the judgement of the author of the Philosophy of Right (Hegel, 1821). According to Hegel, this form of liberalism ‘fails to see ( . . . ) the deep social rootedness of people within an established framework of their political and social institutions’. Rawls does not hesitate to stress also: ‘I see [Hegel’s] as an important exemplar in the history of moral and political philosophy of the liberalism of freedom.

Reply to Joshs Is this quote to insinuate that I am somehow wrong to posit that Rawls didn't write about Hegel in his career generally? I want to be clear: It could be that Rawls only citation is Hegel - but unless he's specifically trying to elucidate Hegel in his own work, I can't rightly justify a reading-acorss. That's all.

Reply to AmadeusD

Quoting AmadeusD

It could be that Rawls only citation is Hegel - but unless he's specifically trying to elucidate Hegel in his own work, I can't rightly justify a reading-acorss

I’m not sure how easy it is to differentiate between being strongly indebted to and influenced by a philosopher in one’s work on the one hand, and ‘trying to elucidate’ a philosopher in one’s work on the other. Isnt this merely the difference between an implicit and an explicitly articulated overlap between Rawls and Hegel? If I tell you I am strongly indebted to the work of Kant, and you then claim that Kant’s work is non-philosophy, then it seems to me you're indirectly invalidating or failing or understand an aspect of my own work.

Quoting Joshs

Isnt this merely the difference between an implicit and an explicitly articulated overlap between Rawls and Hegel?

Not to my mind, but a fair objection. Being influenced by someone's thinking or writing doesn't mean taking on their positions, whether philosophical or otherwise, to me. Even 'heavy' influence doesn't mean you're going to even appear related. What I would say is that had Rawls explicitly written on Hegel and Hegel's work itself I would then have no choice but to judge Rawls work as inextricably connected with Hegel's and that they stand together, in some sense. As it stands, I see influence in his separate, and unique work which is 'Rawls work on Legal and Political philosophy", rather than "Rawls work on Hegel" and do not see them stand together. A good personal example is my current "being influenced" by Alfred North-Whitehead whos thinking I am coming to really enjoy and probably will take on some aspects of - but his theses? Not my bag at all, in terms of conclusions.

Quoting Joshs

If I tell you I am strongly indebted to the work of Kant, and you then claim that Kant’s work is non-philosophy, then it seems to me you're indirectly invalidating or failing or understand an aspect of my own work.

This doesn't hit at all for me, so I guess that's the difference. I cannot see how they connect - Eg. If you incorporate George Lucas into your work, and it's insightful philosophically, that's a good thing and a success for you. But it doesn't make Lucas a philosopher(or Gaarder, or Gibran, or Bulgakov (or all of hte Russians lol)).
If you are somehow offended (not emotionally, but in terms you supplied) by my denying that Kant is a philosopher (lol.. nice eg) then that appears to me something you should work through. It smacks of taking your ball and going home because someone said your wooden plank isn't actually a baseball bat.

I think plenty of super-bright per se philosophers are influenced by plenty of per se non-philosophers. I don't deny this one is a controversial claim to that though :P

Reply to Tom Storm It wasn't meant as a joke. Some people, esp. those more science-minded, seem to have no inner life.

What do you guys think about dark humor and sarcasm?

Reply to Born2Insights I think they are required skills to enjoy life, and "take it as it comes". Though, recognizing them can be difficult.

Reply to AmadeusD Good point thank you

Quoting Born2Insights

What do you guys think about dark humor and sarcasm?

Depends what you mean. Most alleged dark humor and sarcasm is fairly tame and piss-poor. The really dark stuff is off limits to most as it deeply offends. Sarcasm is often predictable and dull - note also the old the saying that 'sarcasm is the lowest form of wit'. Irony and satire are somewhat richer, but may also suffer from conventional dullness if not undertaken by someone with some talent.

Reply to Tom Storm Makes sense not everyone can handle that. Just to make light of certain circumstances and all humor can be proficient if someone knows what they’re doing.

Reply to Tom Storm I thinn your response is parochial in some sense.
Those parameters will only meet your humour benchmark. For others, it will be different t

Quoting AmadeusD

I think your response is parochial in some sense.
Those parameters will only meet your humour benchmark. For others, it will be different t

Perhaps you didn't finish your response. I assume you see my comment as personal judgement. I don't disagree. Given he asked - 'what do you guys think' - what I provided is what I think. :wink:

Is it possible to answer this question without personal judgement?

Reply to Tom Storm nah, the T was a mistake.

I mean to say that you’re trying to talk about other peoples humour…