The Philosophy of Humor (original) (raw)

Laughter, Humor, and Comedy in Ancient Philosophy

Ed. P. Destreé and F. Trivigno, 2019

way. This impression is simply mistaken on at least three counts. First, the ancients theorized about laughter and its causes, they moralized about the appropriate uses of humor and what it is appropriate to laugh at, and they wrote treatises on comedic C0 C0.P1 C0.P2 or playful, and what is trivial. If something is comedic, one might be tempted to think along these lines, then it does not have a serious philosophical purpose and is thus not worthy of serious scholarly attention. This line of thinking is misguided, and we hope to demonstrate with this volume how fruitful and philosophically informative scholarly attention to these passages can be. One of our main motivations for this volume is to give the themes of laughter, humor, and comedy their due, as it were. While volumes on tragedy in ancient philosophy abound, there has unfortunately not comedic technique. How do philosophers typically use humor in their writings? Does the humor play primarily a negative role in criticizing other rivals, or can it play a positive educational role as well? If it can, how does philosophical humor communicate its philosophical content? Our aim with this volume is not to settle these fascinating questions but more modestly to start a conversation about them, and we hope our volume will be a reference point for discussions of laughter, humor, and C0.P3 C0.S1 C0.P4 C0.P5 joker himself may be perceived by the audience as a buffoon. More broadly, laughing at fellow citizens would ultimately destroy the bonds of friendship that hold the polis together. How can one navigate this difficult terrain, and what kind of laughter would be appropriate for a good and socially cohesive city? C0.P9 C0.P10 These community-and friendship-building cases of laughter also have a darker side, as Trapp demonstrates in his analyses of Dio Chrysostom's discourse to the Alexandrians and Plutarch's Life of Antony. According to Trapp, the aim of Dio C0.P12 C0.P13 Discourse The previous section analyzed some ways of dealing with the potential danger of laughter in the ethical and social realms as well as with the moral and social benefits one can get from humor and laughter. This section deals with the usages of humor that nearly all ancient philosophers show in their writings from Plato up to Lucian and Sextus Empiricus, and what role these passages play in communicating with their readers. The two first chapters in this section explore some of the multifaceted humorous devices that we find in Plato's work. Focusing on the figure of Socrates in "Self-Ridicule: Socratic Wisdom," Paul B. Woodruff argues that ridicule, especially C0.S3 C0.P15

Philosophy of Humour and Laughter – a critical analysis

2020

I will focus on the 'playful attitude' factor Morreall briefly landed on and integrate it with a deeper explanation of how play and humour are intertwined with Morreall's' own theory on humour, which I do agree with. So, basically, this thesis will try to deepen Morreall's theory with the works of his critics. Superiority Theory Superiority theory by Plato The term 'superiority theory' of humour was coined in the 20 th century but it has been around since Plato and Aristotle were walking the earth. The general idea of this theory is that humour, and its subsequent laughter, express a feeling of superiority over others or over a former state of ourselves. 1 This view does not seem so nice, and some would argue that this theory of humour caused a bad reputation of laughter and humour in general. 2 The superiority theory was the leading theory of humour from Ancient Greece up until the 18 th century. 3 Though this theory seems outdated, I would argue it can still be seen today. Most evidently in so-called 'cringe' or embarrassment humour. This type of comedy employs jokes to make the audience feel embarrassed, or even cringe, at what the characters are doing to elicit laughter. 4 Plato does not appear to have been a humorous kind of man. He looked around the agora and reached the conclusion that people laugh at the vices of other ignorant, relatively powerless people. This type of humour is still very effective and popular, the successes of television shows such as Fawlty Towers (1975-1979) and more recently the American version of The Office (2005-2013) attest to the idea that the superiority theory might plausibly explain contemporary examples of humour and laughter as well. Superiority Theory by Thomas Hobbes Considering that laughter and humour persisted over the ages, it seems safe to assume that not everyone held this view. This is difficult to assess, because not a lot has been written about humour by philosophers in the past. One old philosopher who had, however, was Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes largely agreed with Plato, and even strengthened this position in his own political-philosophical ways. Hobbes' view of laughter was that it was an expression of

Plato on Laughter and Moral Harm

Laughter, Humor and Comedy in Ancient Philosophy, eds. P. Destrée and F. Trivigno, 2019

resents his characters as laughing on numerous occasions. 1 A good deal of this laughter g or derisive-for example, Thrasymachus laughing at Socrates and Adeimantus (Rep. Polus laughing at Socrates (Grg. 473e2), and the crowd laughing at Clinias' helplessne ering Euthydemus' and Dionysodorus' questions (Euthd. 276b7, 276d1). Socrates, who is depicted as laughing, will often refer to absent or imaginary interlocutors, who would t him and his interlocutor(s) were they present-for example, the many laughing at s, Protagoras, and Prodicus (Prot. 355c8) and the absent questioner laughing at Socrate pias (Hipp. maj. 289c1, 291e6-7, 299a1). 2 There are other examples of laughter that do m to fit this competitive or derisive model-the symposiasts' good-natured laughter at des' drunken entrance (Symp. 213a1, 222c1); the group's laughter at the ludicrous scene by everyone's desire to sit next to Charmides (Chrm. 155b9-c1); Cephalus' laughter at rchus' joke about inheriting the argument (Rep. 331d9); and so on. 3 Further, Plato empl niques of comedy in presenting several of Socrates' interlocutors as ridiculous figures, usible to think that we are meant to laugh at them, even if Socrates does not. Consider, e, the presentation of the characters of Ion, Hippias, Euthydemus, and Dionysodorus-e characters is portrayed in ways that employ the techniques of Aristophanic comedy. 4. Trivigno Despite the prevalence of laughter both inside and outside the dialogues, Plato's explici ng about laughter and comedy is mainly critical and focused on particular sorts of r that are presented as morally harmful. This chapter takes up the question of what exac views on the moral harmfulness of these kinds of laughter are, how they are related, and ace there is left over for what we might call "ethically appropriate" laughter. I provide t of Plato's three distinct analyses of the moral harm of laughter: (§1) in Republic 3, s rejects stories of gods being overcome by laughter on the grounds that powerful laugh voke a powerful change in one's condition; (§2) in Republic 10, Socrates charges that , like tragedy, has the power to tempt even those with knowledge to let down their guar augh at jokes that would be inappropriate to tell, thus strengthening the lower part of on d (§3) in the Philebus 48a-50a, Socrates gives a definition of to geloion (the laughable us) in terms of self-ignorance, and he provides an analysis of what I will call "derisive r," on which it indulges an unjust emotion, phthonos ("envy" or "malice"). On the face criticisms seem to have little in common: the first seems focused on powerful or intens r, the second on the seeming harmlessness of laughter in the theater, and the last on the al causes and consequences of derisive laughter. On my reconstruction, these criticism only logically consistent but also mutually supporting. I argue that Republic 10's analys flesh out what is harmful about powerful laughter in Republic 3 and that the emotional

The Ancient Roots of Humor Theory

HUMOR: The International Journal of Humor Research, 2012

Although the philosophers did write much on the offensive nature of jests, which can be considered illustrative of superiority theory, I describe elements of the incongruity and relief theories of humor motivation in their work. There is evidence to suggest that all four philosophers found humor to be a fitting and effective response to certain exigencies. It is more accurate to summarize their views thus: Humor has the potential to be a powerful tool of persuasion, but like any potent weapon (discursive or non-discursive) it should be used with caution.

What's Laughter got to do with it? The Case for a Humorous Philosophy of Education

A survey of the history of Western philosophy suggests that relatively little has been written about humor, laughter and amusement. While many philosophers, including Plato and Aristotle, touched on humor in their writings, they generally did not address this topic in depth or attempt to create a general theory of humor. Writing in the 1980's, humor theorist John Morreall noted that-until a few years ago, the study of laughter was treated in academic circles as frivolous.‖ 1 Morreall attributed this neglect to the misguided belief that since laughter is not a serious activity, it is neither possible nor desirable to investigate this phenomenon seriously. Moreover, since laughing has rarely been considered a capacity that is uniquely human, it never received the kind of attention and serious investigation that was dedicated to thinking and speaking. Aside from a general tendency to neglect humor, Morreall argues in several works including The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor and Comic Relief that throughout most of the history of Western philosophy, the assessment of humor has not been kind. 2 Indeed, not only Plato and Aristotle but also Descartes and Hobbes generally viewed humor with scorn and tended to focus on the negative rather than positive aspects of humor. Plato argues in The Republic that the guardians-must not be too fond of laughter. For usually when one indulges violent laughter, such a thing is apt to bring in oneself a violent upset of feeling.‖ 3 In addition, he claimed in the dialogue Philebus (48-50) that laughter is usually prompted by negative feelings such as malice and the enjoyment of seeing other people making fools of themselves.

The Phenomenological Function of Humor

Idealistic Studies, 2016

In this paper, I seek to explore the increasing popular claim that the performance of philosophy and the performance of humor share similar features.

A Theory of Humor

2016

BACKGROUND: When we experience humor, we focus mostly on positive affects, though, apparently in a paradoxical manner, laugh and humor often occur in the presence of pain. Humor can emerge where adversity is substantial, in most traumatic situations that sometimes help in the individual‟s growth and in his development. PURPOSE OF STUDY: The objective of this paper is to explore and analyze the relationship between humor and pain, insisting on the importance of pain for understanding humor. We challenge different approaches related to humor and pain with the aim to advance new directions of study. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: Although there are various studies to argue the relationship between humor and pain, attempts to theorizing humor through pain are minimal to our knowledge (Veatch, 1998). The main theories of humor (psychoanalytic, superiority, arousal, incongruity and reversal theories), but also cultural and physiological factors underlying humor experimentation, add valuable explana...