Might laughter disclose truths about humanity itself? To investigate this question further means delving deep into the philosophy of humor: a subject stretching back centuries, which has engaged some of the finest intellects in history. What can we learn from their reflections on why we laugh? Things become complicated quickly when we start trying to pin down what humor does for us. Let’s explore how it influences our perceptions, unsettles some of our basic assumptions, and maybe even plays a part in defining our nature as human beings.
Plato and Aristotle: Humor as Degradation
Plato, an influential philosopher in Western philosophy, was wary of humor. He believed that laughter did not only show amusement but also revealed feelings of superiority and maliciousness.
Plato thought jokes made at someone else’s expense or laughing at their misfortune showed a person feels better than them.
For instance, if one person trips, another might laugh. This is not a simple reaction to the event. It includes delight in the faller’s inferior position. Such laughter could threaten social cohesion by encouraging disdain and divisiveness – something Plato feared.
Aristotle, who was taught by Plato, had a more sophisticated attitude. He agreed that humor could show superiority but added that it might have another social function.
Plato thought that when people laughed at humor, they often saw human failings on display – and could learn from them.
For example, an audience watching a comedy about someone being stupid (and doing daft things as a result) does not only laugh at that person. Viewers also chuckle because they recognize such behavior from their own lives.
This kind of laughter, Aristotle believed, could be used to help make us all better people. If we realized that something we had just done was as silly as the character on TV, then next time, perhaps we wouldn’t do it.
So, whereas Plato feared the effects of different kinds of humor, Aristotle saw one type as a possible means of helping individuals bond better with one another while also improving themselves.
Thomas Hobbes: The Superiority Theory
The theory of humor, known as the Superiority Theory, was proposed by Thomas Hobbes, a philosopher from the 17th century who had a rather pessimistic view of human nature.
According to Hobbes, laughter is primarily a way for us to show that we feel superior to someone else. We laugh when we suddenly see or realize that we are better than somebody else – whether it’s because we have a higher social rank or because we are cleverer or have more wit.
For example, imagine there is a debate, and one of the speakers makes a mistake. If the audience laughs, it’s because they think they have understood something that the speaker has not grasped – so they feel smarter than him (or her).
Hobbes believed that feeling superior was at the root of all types of comedy. In this view, laughter becomes a means of gaining power over people. We use it to show them that socially (if only for a moment), we are higher up the ladder than they are.
However, one can argue that some forms of comedy do not separate people through the degradation of others. Instead, they unite individuals by doing fun things together.
Take, for example, when friends laugh together after a clever wordplay joke. Here, superiority may play no part at all. Here, critics would say Hobbes has too restricted a view because his idea covers only a small number of jokes, which vary widely in their effects.
Although there are criticisms like these, they fit well within Hobbes’ overall thinking. This is because laughter fits perfectly into the English philosopher’s general ideas about human beings. We are always trying to outdo each other and look after ourselves best.
Immanuel Kant: The Incongruity Theory
The Incongruity Theory of humor was coined by Immanuel Kant, a renowned philosopher from the 1700s. His idea revolves around unexpectedness or surprise being what makes things funny.
Kant thought that when a joke goes against what we normally expect, there is a clash in our minds. This clash (or cognitive dissonance) is then solved – and one way that we do this is by laughing. It’s like we chuckle to show that everything is okay again after realizing why the punchline wasn’t predictable.
For instance, take an old joke: “Why did the boy bring a ladder to school?” The answer is, “Because he thought it was high class!” Nobody listening would have expected the play to use words with “high class,” which means both “really good” and “very tall.” So, this punchline produces surprise as well as amusement.
Kant’s theory helps us understand why we enjoy absurd or surreal comedy. Such jokes make us laugh because they subvert our expectations in a way that is illogical – for example when a cartoon character walks off a cliff and doesn’t drop until it realizes.
Furthermore, Kant’s ideas about incongruity have wide-reaching implications for how human beings think and perceive things. They imply that as we go about our daily lives trying to make sense of what’s going on around us (which cognitive scientists call “building a model”).
Incongruity theory can be applied more generally to human cognition and perception: the suggestion is that our minds constantly strive to fit together things that don’t normally belong in the same category.
This goes beyond mere enjoyment value, too. Such observations reveal one of the ways in which jokes help us negotiate with everyday reality. They provide entertainment but also have an intellectual function.
Henri Bergson: The Mechanical Theory
Henri Bergson, an influential French philosopher, proposed a fresh take on comedy through his Mechanical Theory. He suggested that laughter often stems from situations where human actions become mechanical – when existence loses its flexibility and spontaneity.
Bergson believed we laugh at the mechanical encrustation of life because it points out how little vitality or imagination there is. For instance, think about a character in a sitcom who keeps doing exactly the same thing without realizing it’s pointless – such as continually trying to open a door that clearly won’t move.
What’s funny is the absurdity of rigid, machine-like behavior (as if people were all like this) when we expect adaptability: something different according to humans altogether.
Bergson suggested that humor has a social role. It corrects these (faulty) behaviors. Laughter nudges people into life’s flow by making them more flexible and spontaneous.
His ideas can help us understand why we laugh at modern slapstick comedians so much. It is their exaggerated actions, often repeated, that Bergson thought were funny – like slipping on a banana skin over and over again.
Here, we see Bergson’s influence on today’s world of comedy. Such performers use mechanical devices to get laughs. We also gain insight into an aspect of human nature that his theory explores – namely, how laughter can shape our behavior without our even realizing it.
Sigmund Freud: The Relief Theory
In presenting his Relief Theory, psychoanalysis pioneer Sigmund Freud put forth an intriguing argument about humor. It lets us discharge the psychological tension that has built up. The tension that we need to let out because it stems from forbidden or repressed thoughts and feelings.
Jokes, Freud said, allow these otherwise inadmissible (and therefore uncomfortable) ideas and wishes to be heard – but in a disguised form that won’t make anyone blanch or feel outraged. They are more acceptable when they arrive accompanied by a drum roll and cymbal crash.
For example, suppose someone is feeling distinctly insecure about their employment status after a day of rude rebuffs from the boss and a parking ticket. At dinner with friends, this person might say, “Well, I’m relieved I haven’t been fired … yet.”
Freud posited that the cathartic effects of humor stem from its ability to release pent-up energy. By approaching uncomfortable or taboo topics indirectly, people can acknowledge them without having to experience their full force.
This idea is brought into stark relief when we consider dark comedy. Jokes about matters that are deeply unfunny—illness, death, war—can provide a release for the fear or sadness which underpins our attitude to these issues.
In understanding how jokes function as a form of self-defense, Freud went further than this. Often, a quip will appear flippant or jolly on the surface but conceal serious intent. It is one way in which we reveal aggressive or anti-social impulses without risking retaliation or opprobrium.
Humor doesn’t just enable us to take control of our negative feelings by shunting them off in unexpected directions (though it does do this very well). It also permits people to broach subjects that would be either too painful or embarrassing to raise in earnest.
John Morreall: Humor as Play
John Morreall, a modern philosopher, provides an interesting view on humor. He suggests that we should think of it as a kind of play that can help us see the world in a different way.
Morreall doesn’t just mean that jokes make life more fun. He thinks there is something deeper going on, too. When we joke, we don’t have to take real life seriously. It’s like being in an “intellectual playground” where we can try out new ideas and ways of thinking about things.
Laughing at a gag also has another effect. For a short time, our minds stop following their usual patterns and become more flexible and creative.
For instance, if you hear a quip about animals running businesses, you have to imagine a world where this might happen – even though it doesn’t make sense! In this way, humor encourages us to consider playful and alternative viewpoints by temporarily suspending normal logic circuits.
According to Morrell, humor promotes a relaxed and open attitude toward life because it is lighthearted. Humor helps us deal with change, come up with creative solutions to problems, and reduce tension by giving us a fresh perspective on things. In other words, humor enables us to “think outside the box.”
Morreall also argues that there are ethical and educational aspects to humor which are worth considering philosophically. In an educational context, for instance, humor can break down barriers between teachers and students making lessons more interesting as well as understandable.
From an ethical standpoint, laughter can also foster feelings such as compassion or comprehension when we look at matters from different angles simultaneously.
So, What Is the Philosophy of Humor?
The philosophy of humor tries to figure out two things: what makes us laugh, and what does our laughter say about us? At heart, humor is important because it helps us deal with life’s difficult parts. It can also do other things that nothing else can do – it lets people share happiness, or see the world in a new and special way.
Professional thinkers have been interested in humor for a long time. They don’t study jokes just because they want to know how to be funny at parties. They think jokes are interesting.
When we start to understand why we laugh, we can start seeing all the different jobs our laughter does: making friends, making hard times feel better, coping with difficulties, being creative (thinking of new ideas), growing, and changing as people.
Far from simply being amusing, jokes make life better in all sorts of ways that serious philosophy has too often overlooked.
