happyman
|
I intend to open the discussion on humor. To be exact on its nature and essence–that is to answer the question what makes funny things funny? This is inspired by reading a few paragraphs from Kant’s analysis of jokes, so I will begin with his take on what it means to be funny. He claimed that “Laughter is an effect that arises if a tense expectation is transformed into nothing.” (This is from Critique of Judgment.) The anatomy of jokes indeed can be fit into this idea. When jokes are set-up it is a way of building up this expectation; and the punchline of the joke is a dissipation of this tension. But humor, of course, is not limited to jokes. And this is not a problem because I observe that expectation does not require an artificial set-up, and that it can and does naturally arise simply by context, or in situation. For example, in the middle of a conversation someone can say something funny unintentionally.
Now anyone who wants to post any ideas related to humor can do so. But also I would like people to consider challenging Kant’s definition–that is by giving a counter-example of humor that can’t fit into his criteria for funny?
|
walrus
|
how ironic… seryoso masyado yung intro ni TS, ehehe… 
|
kiyokawa
|
kala ko parang joke thread to, yun pala may mga idealismo pang involved at kung anu-ano pang whatnots… lolol
|
kabes
|
ang lalim ng joke, di ko na-gets
|
shinch
|
every afternoon when he was still living, Kant would take scheduled afternoon walks. sa sobrang pag-abide niya sa schedule niya ng “leisure walk”, ginawa na siyang marker ng mga kapitbahay niya kung anong oras na ba. scheduled leisure walks is not my idea of fun and deep thinking humor is not exactly my idea of humorous. sana na-appease si TS. :peace:
|
kabes
|
^ wow natawa ko, ang galing!
|
happyman
|
Well it’s one thing to try to be funny and another thing to try to understand why some things are funny and other things not. Of course, it was not my intention to be funny but to provoke discussion on why people think certain things are to be considered funny. I want to consider humor as observable phenomena–and reduce it to its barest principles–to consider humor as humor. I didn’t think it would be difficult for anyone to contribute to the discussion because it requires a simple reflection on all the instances that made us laugh.
And I think it can be a fruitful discussion maybe for insight on the psychology of laughter, or maybe for just the occasional comic who will benefit from a more enlightened formula for his craft.
And btw, I think Kant was a funny person too, in his own right, because he was according to accounts, usually the life of the party–he knew how to entertain people with stories of places he’s never been to. And his students in university rated him cool.
|
mbl17
|
I think this is interesting but have nothing significant to contribute at the moment. Hehe. I’ll try to do some research (im positive there have already been attempts to dissect humor). Tense expectation maybe one but not the sole reason why things are funny just as there are many types of jokes or funny situations. How would we explain knock knock jokes, etc? Why are things funny for some people and not for others? How do we explain green jokes/racist jokes? Toilet humor? Jokes about ugly people?
Anyway dun lang nagtatapos thoughts ko for the day. Haha. Sorry. Sana makabalik ako with more input =P
|
(Popoy_God)
|
Nakakatawa pa ba ang joke kapag inexplain na/ieexplain pa?
|
shinch
|
^i second emotion. :embarasslaff:
|
sleeping cinderella
|
magjojoke sana ako, kaso ang seryoso pala ng discussion dito, :rotfl:
|
happyman
|
to mbl17: I think a joke, like knock-knock, insofar as it is decomposable to set-up and punchline conforms to Kant’s definition. As to why different people have different tastes in funny can possibly be explained by the subjectivity of “tense expectation.” For example, a person who has heard a joke before may have a different response from someone who has not. As to why jokes on sex, death and race etc. could be found funny. I suppose taboo lends already to the idea of unrealized tension and expectations as a result of a possibly repressive response of certain (I reckon most) individuals to such topics
|
seminarista
|
[b]sleeping_cinderella[/b]: Knock-knock jokes daw. :rotflmao:
Anatomy of humor pala ang usapan dito. Nosebleed. :embarasslaff:
|
(Popoy_God)
|
Imagine: bumili ka ng isang JOKE BOOK sa National, sealed pa, tapos pagbukas mo sa bahay ganito pala ang laman…
|
sleeping cinderella
|
seminarista: wag na. mawawalan ako ng self-esteem dito. :rotfl:
|
happyman
|
“Nakakatawa pa ba ang joke kapag inexplain na/ieexplain pa?”
I assume jokes require an explanation sometimes because the person who has heard it has failed to GET the joke. And of course jokes are not funny to the person who doesn’t get it. And the joker might be provoked to explain the joke so that the audience would understand it and the joker hopes to get the intended response.
But then again it is different to explain jokes in general as phenomena, as opposed to explaining particular jokes to certain people who failed to get the joke. When we explain jokes as jokes, we are not necessarily trying to be funny. On the contrary, we investigate it, as with any phenomena, in the manner of serious speculation and discussion with an eye of discovering some parcel of truth about it.
|
seminarista
|
May jokes na akala talaga ng joker ay nakakatawa pero pagkatapos niyang i-crack, hindi niya na-elicit ang expected reaction niya mula sa audience. Ang tawag dun ay epic fail.
Si [b]sleeping_cinderalla[/b] baka may maidadagdag na sasabihin tungkol sa epic fail na jokes. :rotflmao:
|
kremils
|
happyman, why not so happy?
humor is culture.
|
