I must admit I'd never heard of a git until you mentioned it. — Hanover

That's what I love about this place - the deep cultural intercourse.

It must be a British insult, probably used with the word bloody — 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.

My spell check changes it to got, which means it's not a real word as far as spell check is concerned. — 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.

I therefore rule it not a word. — 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 ?

Anticipating you'll object to my ruling on stupidity grounds — 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.

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. — 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 ?

Carry on. — 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:

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 ? — Amity

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.

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 ? — Amity

Is this that sexy bastard?

Nietzsche is one of the few philosophers who really does put a smile on my face while reading him. His writing glows with wit. Kierkegaard can be pretty funny too. That said, philosophers have had alot to say about humor! A reading list:

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.

So are you still confused about what you wrote ?
What specifically ? — Amity

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:

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. — Hanover

: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:

Thanks for the reply.

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.

When I think of Atlanta, I am Gone with the Wind :fire: — Amity

Atlanta is much the same now as it was in the waning days of the Civil War.

What specifically puts a smile on your face when reading him ? — Amity

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.

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. — StreetlightX

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...

Oh wow. From its ashes...
Should have been renamed Phoenix...oh wait... — Amity

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.

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. — Hanover

Great symbol of renewal that bird. The Greeks and the Romans probably got there first.

Now look whose being humourless :rage:

Now look whose being humourless :rage: — StreetlightX

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:

The trouble a lack of humour and understanding can get us into.

http://djflanagan.blogspot.com/2016/11/nietzsche-humour-and-great-war.html

Nietzsche, Humour and the Great War

I think the war was partly caused by a lack of humour in both the Germans and the British and an acute failure to understand some profound insights into the human condition. I think, for example, that one reason the war broke out was because the peoples of Europe failed to get the jokes of that much maligned and misunderstood philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche — Damian Flanagan

Great symbol of renewal that bird. The Greeks and the Romans probably got there first. — Amity

Nope, it was the Atlanta City Council that first used that bird. They thought it up themselves.

Nope, it was the Atlanta City Council that first used that bird. They thought it up themselves. — Hanover

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...

Analyzing or explaining humor doesn't work. It just sounds lame. It is lame. So, I decided to try an impressionistic approach.

• Humor is play. Play is aggressive and competitive. Play is also gentle and submissive, but humor is not.
• Humor is always irreverent. If something is not, it’s not humor. It is a humor product the way Velveeta is a cheese product.
• In Romeo and Juliet, Mercutio says “look for me tomorrow and you will find me a grave man.” Is that humor? Is it funny?
• No, humor cannot be used by business to promote “worker satisfaction.”
• Humor is always spontaneous.
• The funniest thing in the history of the universe is the scene from Buster Keaton’s “Navigator” where the hero, played by Keaton, gets a rope attached to a small cannon tangled up with his foot and runs around the ship trying to get away before it goes off.
• The funniest joke in the history of the world goes like this – I went to the doctor. She told me I was fat. I told her I wanted a second opinion, so she told me I was ugly too. I tell that joke every time I go to the doctor and I laugh every time. I tell it to my doctor too. I’ve been losing weight and I’m worried I won’t be able to use it anymore.
• Getting old is funny. It gets funnier the older you get. Death is funny.
• Everything serious is funny. Serious and funny are right next to each other. Everything else is further away.
• I love country music. One reason is that it is not afraid to be funny. Lyle Lovett – “I don’t love you any less, but I can’t love you anymore.” Laurie Lewis – “Just when I’ll believe in you, you’ll be leaving me.” Listen to “She Took it Like a Man” by Confederate Railroad.
• I told my closest friend, if she gets really sick and tells me she’s going to die, I’ll say “Fuck you. I’m dying before you do. There’s no fucking way you’re leaving me behind.” She laughed. If you really love someone, you’ll make a joke when you find out they're dying. Except not your children.
• Philosophy is incredibly funny. Silly. Ridiculous. One of the funniest things in the world. Absurd. But that’s ok. The problem is not that it’s funny, it’s if you don’t recognize it’s funny. Philosophy is play – play with words, play with ideas. If your philosophy is not playful, it’s bad philosophy.
• It’s hard to know which approach to philosophy is funniest, but it may be anti-natalism. Sorry, that’s gratuitous. All the rest are just as funny.
• I’m a bit drunk writing this. My wife is out of town and I’m sitting in a dark house drinking wine and writing down as many thoughts about humor as I can.
• We are funny creatures for two reasons 1) It’s built into us. I don’t know if it’s by coincidence or if it’s necessary based on what we are, how our minds work, and 2) Face it - We’re just fucking funny. Funny was invented because we needed some way to recognize ourselves.

: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:

• 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.  — Dr. Morreall

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...

Play is aggressive and competitive. Play is also gentle and submissive, but humor is not. — T Clark

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 ?

Humor is always spontaneous. — T Clark

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.

Philosophy is incredibly funny. Silly. Ridiculous. One of the funniest things in the world. Absurd. But that’s ok. The problem is not that it’s funny, it’s if you don’t recognize it’s funny. Philosophy is play – play with words, play with ideas. If your philosophy is not playful, it’s bad philosophy. — T Clark

Ooooh. Tell that to the mods, I dare ya' :wink:

Cooperative approaches to humour.
What would this look like ?

Is it about the Cooperative Principle?

The cooperative principle is a principle of conversation that was proposed by Grice 1975, stating that participants expect that each will make a “conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange.”

The cooperative principle, along with the conversational maxims, partly accounts for conversational implicatures. Participants assume that a speaker is being cooperative, and thus they make conversational implicatures about what is said.

https://glossary.sil.org

Back to definitions:

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:

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

Cooperative approaches to humour.
What would this look like ?

Is it about the Cooperative Principle? — Amity

Following this question...
It would seem that jokes are created by violating Grice's maxims. Who knew ?

This paper concentrates on one of the widely used means to evoke laughter, telling jokes. Analysing the jokes in relation with Grice’s maxims show that most of the jokes used in media such as sit-coms, movies, and books are formed by violating Grice’s Maxims...

...The cooperative principle of communication assumes that the participants in a speech act share a common goal (or the conversation moves towards a tacitly agreed direction) and so each participant puts on a mutual effort to communicate successfully to reach this goal. This principle was put forth by philosopher Paul Grice. He formulates this as “Make your contribution such as it is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged” (Grice, 1989, p. 45). He further distinguishes four sub-principles called maxims (Grice’s maxims), under cooperative principles, that explains the process through which communication implications are generated. On the one hand, if a conversation adopts to these maxims then they contribute to a cooperative exchange, but on the other hand, wilfully violating these maxims creates joke...

https://voidabyss.blogspot.com/2017/05/creating-jokes-by-violating-grices.html

Any thoughts on Grice and humour?

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 ? — Amity

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.

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 ? — Amity

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.

Philosophers are humourless gits

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.