Freethought & Rationalism Archive

emphryio · 01-30-2002, 01:46 PM

Here's some charity.

What is funny, is when a person is exposed to a unique example of how pitiful existence is.

I only have slight doubt that the above statement is true. Show me anything funny and I can show you how it shows the pitifulness and hopelessness of existence.

In further detail, what is wrong is what is funny. But the fact that the item is wrong shows how pitiful existence is.

I won't give a bunch of examples. Beyond slipping on banana peel(1) and all word puns(2).
1.It's wrong to slip on a banana peel. That not the individual but what the individual represents can't even adequately walk, shows the pitifulness of existence.
2. Duck walks into a bar orders drink. Bartender says, "How will you pay?"
"Put it on my bill".
It's wrong that our language has flaws. How pitiful we are that we have such a pitiful language.

But what if it's wrong, obviously pitiful but not funny? (Like a car accident).
Its not funny because you don't consider it unique. Cars wreck all the time. (Actually they're a bigger killer of Americans than all US wars. But hey we're a barbaric people that doesn't really place that much value on life, so who cares?)
If people were constantly mistaking bill and bill, than it wouldn't be funny either. It would be a known example of how we are flawed but not a brand new one to be dumped on to the pile.

You see it's when a brand new example of our flaws is dumped onto the pile that the following happens: THERE IS A VERY BRIEF OVERLOAD, WHEN ALL THAT IS WRONG OVERWHELMS. THIS VERY BRIEF INSTANT IS QUICKLY FOLLOWED BY MOMENTARILY "GIVING UP". DURING THE MOMENT OF GIVING UP, ALL STRESS DISAPPEARS. WHEN ALL STRESS DISAPPEARS, A EUPHORIA WASHES OVER YOU, WHICH RESULTS IN LAUGHING. (But why does this euphoria make us emit short staccato bursts?Euphoria=power? A demonstration of power is short staccato bursts from our lungs?)
Note: I'm not sure that what I have in caps is true. (Or the staccato bursts thing, of course.)
A further observation: the individual bursts of air that make up laughter, remind me of the grunts of monkeys. Except theirs are slowed down a bit. Are they laughing?
The euphoria that washes over humans, could be equivalent to a display of power by a monkey? Just thinking out loud.

Should I bother putting this into the philosophy section? Or just keep it for myself? Based on what else is usually in there, which I personally consider mostly useless (in my infinite stupidity), this won't be appreciated. Ahh but what the heck.
I give this to you. Enjoy.

Adrian Selby · 01-30-2002, 01:54 PM

"(But why does this euphoria make us emit short staccato bursts?Euphoria=power? A demonstration of power is short staccato bursts from our lungs?)"

Babies laugh

Isn't it great that when you think about laughing, you smile. And why this natural drawing apart of the lips sideways?

Humour is an immensely tough thing to think about, it seems to be a property of very developed consciousness and communication, i.e. animals don't find things 'funny', well, I don't think they do. Is its purpose like you indicate, a mechanism used to cope with the stress an extremely complex conscious system feels? I don't know, threads of it are tied up in culture, given that different cultures tend to find different things funny, witness Benny Hill's continued popularity in the Far East, and the fact that some international joke competition to find the funniest joke, if I remember this right, had no entries from Germans, which, being British, is a stereotype I know, but hey

Perhaps the difficulties in defining humour stem from it being one of the most complex attributes of human consciousness, far beyond the need to eat and have shelter, and beyond the need for work, politics etc.

But perhaps I'm not being integral enough with it.

Adrian

Francois Tremblay · 01-30-2002, 04:31 PM

I think the current hypothesis turn around humour being a form of surprise, a pleasure that is given to us so we may seek contradictions in thinking and root them out.

Things which obviously exist and bring nothing more cognitively (such as cars crashing) are not funny. The duck joke is funny because in the context, the word "bill" obviously refers to the bill to pay, but the fact that it is a duck saying it refers to another meaning.

I'm not sure how well your "pitiful" hypothesis stands against this (note I am not saying your hypothesis is pitiful, just giving it a name

).

For example, I laugh at the duck joke and yet I don't find it pitiful that one word has many meanings - in fact, I think it is a good thing. So while we associate a lot of things as being absurd, it does not mean that all these things are pitiful. I think it's a pretty fine line, and I'm not sure if there would be a way to clearly distinguish the two, though.

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: Franc28 ]</p>

Jonsey3333 · 01-30-2002, 10:37 PM

How about exageration that is humorous? An example:

This is from an episode of The Kids in the Hall. I forgot parts, so I just filled in the blanks with what I think happened.

This one guy is very proud of his beloved pen. Someone asks to borrow his beloved. He reluctantly agrees and tells the borrower to make sure to give it back.

Well, the guy walks off, sincerely forgetting to give it back. The pen lender realizes this and chases after in hot pursuit. The borrower hails a taxi and is getting away. The lender steals a mo-ped or something and speeds after the taxi.

After a thrilling car chase the borrower gets out and the lender asks for his pen back. He gets its and is euphoric, as someone (an ambulance?) comes, wraps him in a blanket, and consoles him.

The next day, the guy lends his pen again, but it is attached to a length of string for security.

This does not show the pitifulness and hopelessness of existence. It simply shows the absurdity of a fantasy.

-Mike

Francois Tremblay · 01-31-2002, 01:57 PM

Well, I don't want to be a Devil's Advocate, but it seems to me that being so attached to a simple pen is rather pitiful.

I think the main problem is that anything absurd and uncommon could also be qualified as pitiful. But after thinking about it, I still think puns is the most probant class of examples that prove my case. Perhaps I should also point out that it's possible to imagine pitiful things that are not funny, such as the devastation in the wake of tornado. So perhaps falsification would be better served if we look in that direction.

zootwoman · 01-31-2002, 08:06 PM

Viktor Frankl:
On Humor

To discover that there was any semblance of art in a concentration camp must be surprise enough for an outsider, but he may be even more astonished to hear that one could find a sense of humor there as well; of course, only the faint trace of one, and then only for a few seconds or minutes. Humor was another of the soul's weapons in the fight for self-preservation. It is well known that humor, more than anything else in the human make-up, can afford an aloofness and an ability to rise above any situation, even if only for a few seconds.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The attempt to develop a sense of humor and to see things in a humorous light is some kind of a trick learned while mastering the art of living. Yet it is possible to practice the art of living even in a concentration camp, although suffering is omnipresent. To draw an analogy: a man's suffering is similar to the behavior of gas. If a certain quantity of gas is pumped into an empty chamber, it will fill the chamber completely and evenly, no matter how big the chamber. Thus suffering completely fills the human soul and conscious mind, no matter whether the suffering is great or little. Therefore the "size" of human suffering is absolutely relative.

It also follows that a very trifling thing can cause the greatest of joys.

Laurentius · 02-01-2002, 08:09 PM

Quote:

1.It's wrong to slip on a banana peel. That not the individual but what the individual represents can't even adequately walk, shows the pitifulness of existence.

No, it's more than that; humor is one big step away from animality. Should we be, say, wolves, and should one of us slip, stumble, stagger, or anything of the kind, he or she would raise a problem of vulnerability. Being vulnerable equals death. Vulnerable wolves are devoured by their own kind. Vulnerable apes are banished from the group. Humans have turned a reaction of high adversity into one of solidarity. Well, more or less detached solidarity.
AVE

Francois Tremblay · 02-01-2002, 09:17 PM

But I'd point out that puns, and I'm sure other forms of humour, disprove the idea of vulnerability also. Unless you contend there are many explanations for humour ?

Laurentius · 02-02-2002, 10:38 AM

There are several explanations of humour, each one as valid as one anthropological theory can be. The one I was talking about attempts to explain the way people accompany their feeling of having come across something funny: laughter. Manny mammals spasmotically show their teeth in order to threaten - as a sign of agression. In humans, grinning often has a benevoent meaning, such as grinning to a baby with a wide-eyed expression.

I read all these about 5 years ago, but i've forgotten its title and author. I'm sure all the other books treating this subject will mention the same theories, including the one so badly i am recalling here.
AVE

zootwoman · 02-02-2002, 02:05 PM

I think there are lots of different kinds of humor. What about the role of self-depreciative humor in building relationships?

and what about humor as medicine? Who is that famous author who claimed to have "healed" himself from a deadly disease by old Candid Camera vidoes - laughing himself well. Then there's Patch Adams and his clown hospital. Is this all bunk? What happens to us physiologically when we laugh?

01-30-2002, 01:46 PM	#1
emphryio Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: WV Posts: 4,369	What humor is Here's some charity. What is funny, is when a person is exposed to a unique example of how pitiful existence is. I only have slight doubt that the above statement is true. Show me anything funny and I can show you how it shows the pitifulness and hopelessness of existence. In further detail, what is wrong is what is funny. But the fact that the item is wrong shows how pitiful existence is. I won't give a bunch of examples. Beyond slipping on banana peel(1) and all word puns(2). 1.It's wrong to slip on a banana peel. That not the individual but what the individual represents can't even adequately walk, shows the pitifulness of existence. 2. Duck walks into a bar orders drink. Bartender says, "How will you pay?" "Put it on my bill". It's wrong that our language has flaws. How pitiful we are that we have such a pitiful language. But what if it's wrong, obviously pitiful but not funny? (Like a car accident). Its not funny because you don't consider it unique. Cars wreck all the time. (Actually they're a bigger killer of Americans than all US wars. But hey we're a barbaric people that doesn't really place that much value on life, so who cares?) If people were constantly mistaking bill and bill, than it wouldn't be funny either. It would be a known example of how we are flawed but not a brand new one to be dumped on to the pile. You see it's when a brand new example of our flaws is dumped onto the pile that the following happens: THERE IS A VERY BRIEF OVERLOAD, WHEN ALL THAT IS WRONG OVERWHELMS. THIS VERY BRIEF INSTANT IS QUICKLY FOLLOWED BY MOMENTARILY "GIVING UP". DURING THE MOMENT OF GIVING UP, ALL STRESS DISAPPEARS. WHEN ALL STRESS DISAPPEARS, A EUPHORIA WASHES OVER YOU, WHICH RESULTS IN LAUGHING. (But why does this euphoria make us emit short staccato bursts?Euphoria=power? A demonstration of power is short staccato bursts from our lungs?) Note: I'm not sure that what I have in caps is true. (Or the staccato bursts thing, of course.) A further observation: the individual bursts of air that make up laughter, remind me of the grunts of monkeys. Except theirs are slowed down a bit. Are they laughing? The euphoria that washes over humans, could be equivalent to a display of power by a monkey? Just thinking out loud. Should I bother putting this into the philosophy section? Or just keep it for myself? Based on what else is usually in there, which I personally consider mostly useless (in my infinite stupidity), this won't be appreciated. Ahh but what the heck. I give this to you. Enjoy.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-30-2002, 01:54 PM	#2
Adrian Selby Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Farnham, UK Posts: 859	"(But why does this euphoria make us emit short staccato bursts?Euphoria=power? A demonstration of power is short staccato bursts from our lungs?)" Babies laugh Isn't it great that when you think about laughing, you smile. And why this natural drawing apart of the lips sideways? Humour is an immensely tough thing to think about, it seems to be a property of very developed consciousness and communication, i.e. animals don't find things 'funny', well, I don't think they do. Is its purpose like you indicate, a mechanism used to cope with the stress an extremely complex conscious system feels? I don't know, threads of it are tied up in culture, given that different cultures tend to find different things funny, witness Benny Hill's continued popularity in the Far East, and the fact that some international joke competition to find the funniest joke, if I remember this right, had no entries from Germans, which, being British, is a stereotype I know, but hey Perhaps the difficulties in defining humour stem from it being one of the most complex attributes of human consciousness, far beyond the need to eat and have shelter, and beyond the need for work, politics etc. But perhaps I'm not being integral enough with it. Adrian

01-30-2002, 04:31 PM	#3
Francois Tremblay Banned Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Montreal, QC Canada Posts: 876	I think the current hypothesis turn around humour being a form of surprise, a pleasure that is given to us so we may seek contradictions in thinking and root them out. Things which obviously exist and bring nothing more cognitively (such as cars crashing) are not funny. The duck joke is funny because in the context, the word "bill" obviously refers to the bill to pay, but the fact that it is a duck saying it refers to another meaning. I'm not sure how well your "pitiful" hypothesis stands against this (note I am not saying your hypothesis is pitiful, just giving it a name ). For example, I laugh at the duck joke and yet I don't find it pitiful that one word has many meanings - in fact, I think it is a good thing. So while we associate a lot of things as being absurd, it does not mean that all these things are pitiful. I think it's a pretty fine line, and I'm not sure if there would be a way to clearly distinguish the two, though. [ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: Franc28 ]</p>

01-30-2002, 10:37 PM	#4
Jonsey3333 Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA Posts: 92	How about exageration that is humorous? An example: This is from an episode of The Kids in the Hall. I forgot parts, so I just filled in the blanks with what I think happened. This one guy is very proud of his beloved pen. Someone asks to borrow his beloved. He reluctantly agrees and tells the borrower to make sure to give it back. Well, the guy walks off, sincerely forgetting to give it back. The pen lender realizes this and chases after in hot pursuit. The borrower hails a taxi and is getting away. The lender steals a mo-ped or something and speeds after the taxi. After a thrilling car chase the borrower gets out and the lender asks for his pen back. He gets its and is euphoric, as someone (an ambulance?) comes, wraps him in a blanket, and consoles him. The next day, the guy lends his pen again, but it is attached to a length of string for security. This does not show the pitifulness and hopelessness of existence. It simply shows the absurdity of a fantasy. -Mike

01-31-2002, 01:57 PM	#5
Francois Tremblay Banned Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Montreal, QC Canada Posts: 876	Well, I don't want to be a Devil's Advocate, but it seems to me that being so attached to a simple pen is rather pitiful. I think the main problem is that anything absurd and uncommon could also be qualified as pitiful. But after thinking about it, I still think puns is the most probant class of examples that prove my case. Perhaps I should also point out that it's possible to imagine pitiful things that are not funny, such as the devastation in the wake of tornado. So perhaps falsification would be better served if we look in that direction.

01-31-2002, 08:06 PM	#6
zootwoman Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: austin, Texas Posts: 12	Viktor Frankl: On Humor To discover that there was any semblance of art in a concentration camp must be surprise enough for an outsider, but he may be even more astonished to hear that one could find a sense of humor there as well; of course, only the faint trace of one, and then only for a few seconds or minutes. Humor was another of the soul's weapons in the fight for self-preservation. It is well known that humor, more than anything else in the human make-up, can afford an aloofness and an ability to rise above any situation, even if only for a few seconds. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The attempt to develop a sense of humor and to see things in a humorous light is some kind of a trick learned while mastering the art of living. Yet it is possible to practice the art of living even in a concentration camp, although suffering is omnipresent. To draw an analogy: a man's suffering is similar to the behavior of gas. If a certain quantity of gas is pumped into an empty chamber, it will fill the chamber completely and evenly, no matter how big the chamber. Thus suffering completely fills the human soul and conscious mind, no matter whether the suffering is great or little. Therefore the "size" of human suffering is absolutely relative. It also follows that a very trifling thing can cause the greatest of joys.

02-01-2002, 09:17 PM	#8
Francois Tremblay Banned Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Montreal, QC Canada Posts: 876	But I'd point out that puns, and I'm sure other forms of humour, disprove the idea of vulnerability also. Unless you contend there are many explanations for humour ?

02-02-2002, 10:38 AM	#9
Laurentius Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Lucky Bucky, Oz Posts: 5,645	There are several explanations of humour, each one as valid as one anthropological theory can be. The one I was talking about attempts to explain the way people accompany their feeling of having come across something funny: laughter. Manny mammals spasmotically show their teeth in order to threaten - as a sign of agression. In humans, grinning often has a benevoent meaning, such as grinning to a baby with a wide-eyed expression. I read all these about 5 years ago, but i've forgotten its title and author. I'm sure all the other books treating this subject will mention the same theories, including the one so badly i am recalling here. AVE

02-02-2002, 02:05 PM	#10
zootwoman Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: austin, Texas Posts: 12	I think there are lots of different kinds of humor. What about the role of self-depreciative humor in building relationships? and what about humor as medicine? Who is that famous author who claimed to have "healed" himself from a deadly disease by old Candid Camera vidoes - laughing himself well. Then there's Patch Adams and his clown hospital. Is this all bunk? What happens to us physiologically when we laugh?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.