For me, humor is just a consequence of the working of our minds. Evolution gave us minds that could manipulate abstract ideas and stand as observers of ourselves and others. Humor is just one way that expresses itself. I can't see that it has any special value of its own, except maybe as a way of bringing people together.

Maybe humor is like consciousness and arose from the same source. Now you've given us the Hard Problem of Humor.

Regarding the poll, I voted undicided/no theory, and I'd have voted the same for the final question, except there was no option for that, so I voted "never" - I'll explain.

First, your theory is less implausible than limited, and unless I get the whole picture, I can't really judge your theory.

I'll start with laughter. You say, laughter is the natural response to humour - so what's the relationship between laughter and humour? If I'm not mistaken, babies start laughing at around 3 to 4 months. I'm sure they're not old enough to understand narrative jokes, which your theory seems to rely on. Laughter seems to be more basic, to me, than what you seem to be interested in.

Second, jokes. I'm not convinced all humour is about peril. Visual gags are often about impossibility, or incongruity. I'm thinking, for example, about the lolcat craze a couple of years back, which was kitty picture with captions in faulty grammar. There are non-narrative jokes ("What's the difference between a banana?" - "Huh?" - "Exactly." - Some people find that funny, some don't.)

I can see your theory making sense under a more abstract mother theory: for example - humour involvest he unexpected - unexpected stuff can be dangerous - relief when it isn't. Not sure I buy that, though, since baby laughter seems to be more about enjoyment than relief, but again, not sure.

As for the final quesiton: I think people shouldn't laugh at someone else's expense. Your final options talks about the "audience", and, well, I don't trust an audience to judge what's "benign", and part of it is that I seem to connect humour to pleasure more than you do (not only, but also), and that I think laughing at others misfortune gives some people pleasure, but it might be something they don't like to admit to themselves, because they might end up a little unhappy with themselves. So I ended up voting the "never" option, which I'm not completely happy with either, since my response is more based on a I-wish-people-weren't-like-that pipe dream. Bascially, I could have chosen any option, here, and I'd have been about equally unhappy. Maybe I should have picked the third option, after all.

Your "1-9 list" seems more like an origin story for drama than for humor. However, a good joke is also a 'little drama'.

BTW, saber tooth tigers were extinct by 10,000 years ago. How did they go extinct? We wiped them out -- along with other megafauna. How did we manage to do that? Sharp objects.

Meanwhile, back at the comedy club...

I suspect laughter has more ancient roots than the lithic or neolithic periods, but you are spot on in identifying tension and relief as key elements. Our primate ancestors may have developed the vocalized relief breathing that developed into laughter. We also LEARN when to laugh and when to not laugh. For instance, if you see someone slip and fall in a muddy puddle, you probably won't laugh, being a sophisticated urbanite who understanding that laughing at other people's misfortunes is not just schadenfreude, it makes you look like a rube. God forbid! So, if you dislike the person in the muddy puddle, you'll laugh inwardly.

When we hear a joke that promises to be racist and/or sexist (what's black and white and rolls around in the sand), there is first a tension then a release, anticipating the punch line confirming our racist/sexist attitudes. These days sophisticated urbanites are never racist and/or sexist, so no laughter.

Maybe 25 years ago, The Prairie Home Companion Joke show featured a batch of "Your mother is so fat..." jokes. "Yo mama's so fat, when she fell down I didn't laugh, but the sidewalk cracked up." for example. The humor in the joke derives from the surprise exaggeration.

A major component of humor is founded on our negative beliefs and attitudes. Fat people (yo fat mama, for instance) are often the subject of negative attitudes which Fat Liberation (there is such a thing) tries to combat. I am too fat, and I have no time for fat people's liberation. [If you look at crowd photos from the 1950s, 60s, and 70s--all kinds of people--you will see far fewer fat people.]

So, are fat people legitimate targets of humor?

Satire and travesty are two kinds of more extended humor. Tom Lehrer (Harvard Mathematician turned satirist in the 1960s) said, 'When Kissinger won the Nobel peace prize, satire died." The next step after satire is travesty. Travesty too becomes impossible, at times--the entire Trump administration, for instance,

my response is more based on a I-wish-people-weren't-like-that pipe dream — Dawnstorm

And if wishes were horses the peasants would ride. I don't believe "human nature" is infinitely malleable. We are not all that nice, a good share of the time,

The Prairie Home Companion Joke — Bitter Crank

They brought in Paula Poundstone and Roy Blount Jr. to help out the regular guys. They were wonderful. One joke after another non-stop. I had stopped listening to PHC after a while when it became too strident, but I still tried to listen in for the joke shows.

Evolution is often a "just so" story and is used way too much for higher cognitive faculties. We obviously laugh, but we don't know why it's beneficial for survival, bacteria don't laugh and they survive better than us.

I think it sensible to argue that laughter is a form of alleviating stress and dangerous situations. But if it arose for those specific reasons, as opposed to reasons of bonding or anything else, who can say? It's a great topic.

each joke has a tragic element: some person gets a real bad treatment — god must be atheist

Consider this doozy:

How do you make a handkerchief dance?
Put a little boogie in it.

A kid joke. Maybe even edgy for an 8 year old. A joke nonetheless.

No bad treatment here, so your joke formula doesn't work. Or maybe you suggest this isn't a joke. If that is your argument, I'll beat your mother to death.

A joke obviously because someone got real bad treatment.

Boogie! Kills me every time.

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

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

Been there. Done that.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2152/philosophy-joke-of-the-day/p1

Similar to how the serpent tricked Eve into biting from the apple of knowledge, it also tricked her into telling the first joke.

One day, after the fall but before eviction from paradise, Adam went to see Eve. The snake, seeing a humorous opportunity, slithered up Adam's leg and hid in his crotch as Adam approached Eve.

Seeing a bulge, Eve asked, "Is that a snake under your fig leaf or are you just happy to see me?"

A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes. — Witty

Fixed.

bacteria — Manuel

are going to have the last laugh,

Democritus, the laughing philosopher?

Heraclitus, the weeping philosopher?

A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes. — Witty

Life is no laughing matter!

Don't take life too seriously!

Opinions seem divided as to whether humor is good/bad.

There's a time and place for everything. Like the tale of the fool who didn't know the difference between sadness and joy recommends, don't cry at weddings and don't laugh at funerals! It'll only get you in trouble, big trouble!

Laughter is the best medicine!

Not with wrath do we kill, but with laughter. Come, let us kill the spirit of gravity! — FrIEdrich NIEtzsche

Nobody likes to be made the butt of a joke!

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

Followed by several intense volumes on the meanings of the punch lines.



For your next project please dissect the taste of chocolate ice cream.

@god must be atheist

My thoughts:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/388913

Scholars of the highest class, when they hear about the Tao, take it and practice it earnestly.

Scholars of the middle class, when they hear of it, take it half earnestly.

Scholars of the lowest class, when they hear of it, laugh at it.

Without the laughter, there would be no Tao. — Laozi

Life is, much to my dismay, one helluva funny joke! My suffering, alas, all for nought!

The Tao is ruthless — Laozi

We're straw dogs (chogou) in front of the Tao!

X: We need to have a serious discussion.

Y: About what?

X: Humor!

X and Y: :rofl:

Z: Not funny!

:grin:

Jokes aside, what is it that makes things hilarious?

The philosophical joke I'm familiar with is the reductio ad absurdum (reduce to an absurdity). How much of a thigh-slapper it is depends on whether you contradicted yourself or your opponent did (schadenfreude).

Then there's satire which I feel is the highest form of humor! There's critical, life-changing, messages in them, plus you get to :rofl:

please dissect the taste of chocolate ice cream. — jgill

1. Creamy.
2. Chocolatey.
3. Cold.
Always happy to help.


Distinguish:

1. Comedy from tragedy.
2. Wit from folly.
3. Playful from serious.

My first thought is that humour is an antidote or inoculation to fear, disgust, and other negative emotions. One laughs out one's negativity, and this reduces stress. Or else one refuses to recognise one's negative emotions and projects them onto others - 'that's not funny, it's disgusting/offensive/cruel/ puerile.'

Send not to know on whom the butt lands, it lands on thee.

But never mind me or thee, let's get serious about humour: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4255480/

please dissect the taste of chocolate ice cream. — jgill


1. Creamy.
2. Chocolatey.
3. Cold.
Always happy to help. — unenlightened

C-

You forgot sweet.

And if wishes were horses the peasants would ride. I don't believe "human nature" is infinitely malleable. We are not all that nice, a good share of the time, — Bitter Crank

It's not even about human nature, for me. I think any kind of utopian ideal, perfection, or whatever you may want to call it ignores inconvenient apsepcts of reality. Or differently put:

Dawnstorm: I wish people weren't like that.
Unbeknownst to Dawnstorm somewhere a monkey paw's finger curls.

Jokes aside, what is it that makes things hilarious?

The philosophical joke I'm familiar with is the reductio ad absurdum (reduce to an absurdity). How much of a thigh-slapper it is depends on whether you contradicted yourself or your opponent did (schadenfreude).

Then there's satire which I feel is the highest form of humor! There's critical, life-changing, messages in them, plus you get to :rofl: — Agent Smith

Satire is highbrow populism.

Humor, like sex, is idiosyncratic and people are turned on or repelled by different things. I generally dislike and avoid anything that is created to generate laughter - stand up comedy especially, but also comedy movies or TV. There are enough funny things in the world already - people, events, animals, conversations, situations, philosophy fora... I greatly prefer unintentional humor to contrived mirth.

what is it that makes things hilarious? — Agent Smith

Given people find different thing hilarious, there may not be an 'it' as such - perhaps being generous towards a joke or a comedian or being susceptible to comedy is more akin to mysticism.... :gasp:

I notice too how humor has a status unlike most behavior in humans. To describe someone as having 'no sense of humor', is in most cases an immense put down.

Satire is highbrow populism. — Tom Storm

Well yeah, but that's too narrow a definition in my humble opinion. Satire comes closest to what Wittgenstein said about how serious philosophy can be done with nothing but jokes.

mysticism — Tom Storm

Probably, there's something called Holy Laughter, supposedly happens during religious activities like sermons, etc. and can range from :smile: to :rofl: . Speaking for myself there's the possibility that our subconscious realizes how ridiculous faith is.

no sense of humor — Tom Storm

Heraclitus, the weeping philosopher,

Sad Clown Paradox

Stańczyk (painting)

Comedians are not always happy people.

Well yeah, but that's too narrow a definition in my humble opinion. Satire comes closest to what Wittgenstein said about how serious philosophy can be done with nothing but jokes. — Agent Smith

Can you give me an example?

Comedians are not always happy people. — Agent Smith

The sad clown is a cliché but having met some comedy writers and performers over the decades, I'd have to say that most were very anxious and depressed. The idea that you would want to make people laugh as a career does pose some questions.

The sad clown is a cliché but having met some comedy writers and performers over the decades, I'd have to say that most were very anxious and depressed. The idea that you would want to make people laugh as a career does pose some questions — Tom Storm

A cliché simply means overused to the point of no longer being interesting. It doesn't mean it's false. There are many comedians who can make you :rofl: but they're themselves battling severe depression. Having a sense of humor doesn't necessarily mean you're on cloud nine (24/7).

Can you give me an example? — Tom Storm

Google.

How does google assist with this question? My question is can you think of an example of satire that is engaging with serious philosophical thinking? You might say, 'Succession' (which I dislike...) do you follow?

How does google assist with this question? My question is can you think of an example of satire that is engaging with serious philosophical thinking? You might say, 'Succession' (which I dislike...) do you follow? — Tom Storm

I don't usually do things Google can do.

I don't usually do things Google can do. — Agent Smith

Inaccurate, much of what we all write here can be found on google as you well know. Ok, I take it this has hit a nerve of some kind. Let's forget it.

Laughter is a reaction of surprised delight. A smile of recognition mixed with an a-ha (or exaggerated hah-hah-hah) of pleasure.

A joke is something that milks that by presenting a situation where the answer to the riddle has an especially surprising and pleasing aptness to its fit.

To increase the degree of physiological arousal, the punchline must be well concealed in the set-up and then very abruptly revealed, forcing the rapid cognitive reframing. And being sexual, scatalogical, or in other ways socially transgressive, cranks up the said physiological arousal, amplifying the whole effect.

So the cognitive neurobiology is easy enough. It boils down to manipulating the natural mechanics of an orientation response - creating a surprise that isn't a nasty one but instead a clever socially-situated play of words and ideas.

Then as for the social utility of "a good sense of humour", it is a way for the group to feel happy and tight-knit while collectively sealing its shared identity by mocking some convenient "other".

Edgy comedy is the funniest as it even makes you embarrassed about the transgressive other - queasy attitudes about immigrants, minorities, country folk, whatever, that you can still find even find in some small hidden corner of yourself.

Nothing beats humour for socially-acceptable norm enforcement! It is both useful and fun at the same time - even for the butt of the joke if they are lucky.

Inaccurate, much of what we all write here can be found on google as you well know. Ok, I take it this has hit a nerve of some kind. Let's forget it — Tom Storm

I don't want to insult your intelligence by doing something you can do effortlessly.

Coming to satire, I find it very stimulating, intellectually that is. May be it doesn't evoke similar sentiments in you, but you said something that's on point - different strokes for different folks. Forgive my oversight, I should've made it explicit, but then pornography...

It is both useful and fun at the same time — apokrisis

:up: That's what to me is a joke that stands out from the rest.

I can only answer the first question.

No. It is not a plausible theory at all. You would have to provide some solid evidence for this and I cannot see how you can.

Also, you seem to be talking about ‘laughing’ rather than humour/comedy mostly.

I think you have certainly hit on something important about storytelling. Aristotle wrote about comedy, tragedy and general performance too. Nietzsche also developed ideas on this theme. Theatre and general entertainment in the modern world is more ‘passive’ in its format. We sit and merely observe whereas if we trace back the performative arts we can see how the distinction of ‘audience’ and ‘performers’ has been a gradual development.

For example, in Shakespearean times members of the audience would actively try and attack actors playing villains because the line between ‘real’ and ‘performance’ was not like today. Today at the theatre no one would take a murder scene to be an actual murder. If go back further, or look at different cultures, there are instances where the ‘performance’ is something that ‘audience members’ actively participate in - they take on the role of some character in a trance-like fashion.

As for humour in general there is certainly a common theme of ‘surprise’ and, as Aristotle put it, viewing comedy as something bad happening to someone deserving of the bad element, whereas tragedy is something bad happening to someone perceived as ‘good’ - in simplistic terms. Sympathetic feelings play into the humour, or lack of, as well as simple surprise/shock.

People in high emotional states of suffering will often laugh. People have many different reactions to many situations.

I don’t see how it makes any sense to suggest that physical exhaustion is a precursor to laughter. We do know that hyperventilation can induce certain states, and that physical exertion can create a certain high. In what you are saying there is a very tenuous link at best.