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 — IvoryBlackBishop

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. — Pinprick

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.

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

It is like the "all historians agree Jesus was a real historical person".
Since there is no name for this yet, I will call it the authority survivalship bias.

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. Secular historians of WW2, Buddhism, Greece, China, Persia don't go out of their way to study whether there is evidence for Jesus, and even if they do, they won't make public statements on the matter (so you can't find their opinions). Historians of the Bible are a very, very, very small section of historiography.
Likewise, most prominent philosophers don't come out and say whether Marx is a real philosopher or not, because they don't mostly care about Marx, and even if they did, you would not be able to find their real opinion on the matter, as it is not something someone with a reputation would go out of their way to announce publically. 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.

If Russell doubts the philosophical spirit of perhaps the most important medieval philosopher, I wonder what some think of a sociologist trained in philosophy.

I’m calling conservative philosophers deniers of the validity of post-Hegelian philosophy. — Joshs

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

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 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.

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. — mcdoodle

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

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. — Lionino

Do you think that Marx is a philosopher?

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

I don’t consider Heidegger a conservative.

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 — Lionino

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

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. — Fire Ologist

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.

Do you think that Marx is a philosopher? — Joshs

Αs 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.

I don’t consider Heidegger a conservative. — Joshs

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. — Mark Cameron

There is also Roger Scruton. And Schopenhauer could be aptly described as conservative.

Αs 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. — Lionino

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.

Being trained in philosophy does not make one a philosopher. Aquinas was much more trained in philosophy than Marx, yet Russell's criticism.

there are many points of contact with modern philosophical debates throughout his writings

Dawkins', Dostoyevski's, Tolstoi's writings also have many points of contact with philosophical debate. Yet, we don't call them philosophers. Granted, Marx engages with philosophy and/or in a philosophical manner more than those three do — historical materialism being obviously inspired by Hegel.

“The Manuscripts provide a critique of classical political economy grounded in the philosophies of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Ludwig Feuerbach.” — Joshs

You could say he was a political philosopher, yes. But how is it different in practice from political science anyhow?

And I didn't mean to post my comment so soon. I edited it.

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. — Lionino

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 ;)

Hegel — Lionino

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.

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. — Mark Cameron

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.

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. — AmadeusD

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

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. — AmadeusD

You have heard of Bart Erhmann because of Christians who bring him up, am I right?
Bart is a guy who takes the Bible to be historical evidence, that much is silly. 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. He is a public figure, and one should look into his biography, especially his early life.

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

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

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

Very wrong.

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

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.

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. — Lionino

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.

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. — Joshs

Just like everybody else. No famous philosopher of the past centuries would be a conservative in the sense that we, in 2024, bizarrely different even from 2004, understand it, as the concepts of non-binary or intersectionality or colonial reparations would be alien to them; yet it seems to me you are jumping through hoops to validate your own political prejudices. Aristotle's view on women and other races, Kant's on blacks, and Nietzsche's on the race mixed would come as a shock I imagine — or you would just dismiss them as ignorants of the past, but not ignorant enough to not be fundamentally studied to this day. Russell was really the pioneer of the modern politically correct, government-approved philosopher.

I do not agree. But i am not a theologian. — AmadeusD

It is not about theology. I could not find immediately a good link on the topic, I am afraid. The blog brings up other points I do not know about, but I think it is sufficient, though incomplete, for the point I brought up.

He takes elements that are externally supported, in some way as historical, in light of the external support — AmadeusD

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

I would highly, hgihly recommend watching this before responding — AmadeusD

Sorry but 1 hour about a topic that is not horribly important to me seems a bit much. Perhaps I will listen to it while I cook tomorrow or go jog — hopefully I will overcome that the two debaters somewhat sound the same.

I found this as well.

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

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?

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

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

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.

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

Fair enough. We need not care about much :D

profoundly alien to what you are used to — Joshs

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.

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

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.

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

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).

It is not about theology. — Lionino

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.

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 — AmadeusD

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?

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.

Fair enough. We need not care about much :D — AmadeusD

Well I did listen to some of it and skipped to the next topic once the discussion became stifled. It did not have the effect I expected. Bart said what I expected him to say. Both debated well though Bart seemed to have the upper hand. History is harder to debate than philosophy, linguistics, or any science.

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

Those quotes are a whole nest of cats. I can say from the get go's that Paul Johnson's quote is obviously ideological and, if this guy is not actually a Christian, we must live in a parallel world. Robert van Voorst is a Christian theologist. James D Gunn is the same.
I mean, is it really far-fetched that Christians manipulate these pages to make so that reality seem other than it really is? It is always the same claims of a historical consensus that doesn't actually exist. Where is the survey where historians are asked whether Jesus exists? There is not any. This consensus is fabricated. There are scholars that believe it is mythical, so it is not a consensus like it is a consensus in biology that the Tapanuli orantugans are monophyletic and that gorillas are polyphyletic while it is not a consensus that humans are either poly or mono.

There is even, funnily, a quote by Ehrmann in that very page:

The Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today had no existence. That particular Jesus is (or those particular Jesuses are) a myth. But there was a historical Jesus, who was very much a man of his time.

Who doubts that there was a rabbi or preacher called Yeshu (Hebrew for Josh) during 1st century Judaea? Nobody, because it is common sense, Yeshu was a common name back then and Judaea was filled to the brim with (apocalyptic) preachers at the time. Now, that there was a Jesus, that was the son of two Galileans Jews, chased out of Egypt, that discussed with the rabbis at a young age, who had 12 apostles among many followers, who was condemned by the pharisees and whose execution was begrudgingly carried out by Romans? That is who we are talking about when we question whether Jesus existed, not some guy called Josh that preached a little bit. Even if you take out all the supernatural elements from the Bible, there is still no evidence to believe those stories happened. And that there was a Jesus that eventually became the figure that Christians worship? Well, that depends on whether that Josh guy from the beginning of the paragraph has some link to the New Testament, and we know of someone who does, Yeshu ben Ananias.

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

I did not find any historical evidence of the crucifixion there.

That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus ... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.

This quote by a theologian John Cross is particularly dishonest. This guy is no historian. As sure as any historical fact can ever be? Stratospheric, astronomical, gigametric and transdimensional bollocks. There are countless historical facts that are much more sure than that. Josephus obviously has Christian interpolations, and even if there is not, that is even worse, as he would be reporting what Christian believed in, not what he believed in, since as a Jew he would never call Jesus the Christ or say he came back from the dead. The same is the case for Tacitus.

That whole article is a can of worms, as expected from perhaps the most damaging website in the history of the internet, subject to several cabals.
Besides, most of those quotes regarding "X passage is not a forgery" comes from theologians and Christian "historians", against the word of secular historians that raise the possibility it is — once again fabricating consensus despite literally saying in the sentence before that there are professional historians that disagree.

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. — AmadeusD

It is about history; whether you think theology overlaps with history is another matter.

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

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 :)

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 — AmadeusD

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.

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

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

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

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

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 — AmadeusD

…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.