walrus
|
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v385/patrickman/funnies/1226910002748.jpg[/IMG]
|
ninibeLLes
|
something common para bumenta ang mga joke? culture, familiarity, behavior ng mga tao around you, spontaneity (tama ba ang spelling?)
Ex. Di ko nagets yung sabi ni cha-cha about a mollusk, siguro kasi hindi ko napanood ang Finding Nemo.
@TS – naiintindihan ko na may mga tao na kailangan talaga hanapan ng rason ang bawat bagay, bakit ganito, paano nangyari yun, atbp. Pero ang pagpapatawa, di ba mas maganda kung hindi mo inaasahan? yung hindi mo masyadong pinaglimian. Kasi nawawala yung pinaka esensyal na bagay dun sa joke kung pinakahimay himay mo na. It’s like analyzing sex too much it becomes too clinical, too scientific. It zaps the fun out of it.
|
happyman
|
^ I will acknowledge again that it may not be a fun exercise to analyze humor or love or sex. But I don’t think it deflates our instincts in humor. You don’t suppose someone who analyzes jokes will be unable to enjoy laughter again–or someone who attends lecture on sex unable to enjoy sex again. I say the actual activity and the analysis of activity are simply different and need not influence each other. We can analyze humor at one instance and then just casually proceed on enjoying a joke at another time.
|
Cedi
|
An analytical mode is a state of being where emotions are in a state of being neutral. Laughter is obviously located on a specific emotional niche, hence there’s a bit of an unfair treatment in looking at it from an emotional standpoint that is not aligned with that emotional niche laughter is supposedly placed.
|
happyman
|
^Should we be laughing when we discuss humor, trembling when we discuss fear, depressed when we discuss melancholy? No, on the contrary, when we discuss and contemplate something, we can only do so satisfactorily, when we are in a state of sobriety. We can only do so when the mind is free from the influence of passions.
|
walrus
|
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v385/patrickman/funnies/1268504071485.jpg[/IMG]
|
Cedi
|
How can you understand love when you can’t possibly empathize with what it feels like when I started to take note of her words, adding colors to what they meant, as if they were subtly referring to me, persuading me to take some chances with her. That’s something you don’t ponder at Starbucks, jotting down notes on your journal, seeing things from a mere third person point of view. You’ll not understand how that could have felt.
|
happyman
|
^Well, when you wrote those words, weren’t you already assuming that your experience can somehow be communicated to a listener that is capable of empathizing with your feelings. Shouldn’t it be a more surprising fact that humans study the sun or the moon where the consciousness is absolutely removed in substance and extension than to study themselves and their internal states which must consist of raw data of qualities and sensibilities that are impressed in the consciousness directly. It is an interesting aspect of our apprehensive faculty, called imagination–that when we contemplate, for example, hunger, we do not have to be actually hungry when we entertain the concept in the understanding–and similarly with other mental states or emotions.
|
Cedi
|
I view the abstract sometimes as a bigger set that encloses the concrete, to which it is a subset. What you propose is the removal of the subset, which leaves a hole at the center, and yet our ‘doughnut’ scope of understanding is considered sufficient. I view that as limited. Why leave it to the imagination when it can be felt?
|
happyman
|
^ Like I said before, the proper way to view it is the way you view the beauty in the brevity inherent in the laws of physics–for example Newton’s laws of motion or Maxwell’s laws of electromagnetism. It is beautiful because it is as if everything in the universe is reduced to the size of a marble to be admired. You don’t take away in generalizing–so I reject your donut analogy. They are still there, the particular instances, and they are generated by the laws. The same way the axioms of Euclid generate all the theorems that follow from them. And again, contemplation of the facts of life doesn’t stop us from living life itself. You can contemplate it now, feel it later. It’s just different and not necessarily mutually exclusive–to feel and to contemplate our feelings.
|
walrus
|
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v385/patrickman/funnies/1252845731674.jpg[/IMG]
<*cough*>PM<*cough*>
|
happyman
|
^ While only two people are willing to discuss this topic now, I think there is nothing personal or private in the conduct of their discussion. So why?
|
Cedi
|
Both induction and deduction are limited. Both have flaws. Having a preference creates prejudice. Not that i’m saying it’s a bad thing. Both don’t provide a holistic picture.
Personally though, I juggle multiple perspectives. Though if we go to the subject of humor per se, a 3rd person take on it just goes beyond the point of appreciating it. Personally, i find the observant POV on it essentially pointless. I’d rather see the effects of my attempt at satire.
|
iskoisko2
|
happyman: ^ While only two people are willing to discuss this topic now, I think there is nothing personal or private in the conduct of their discussion. So why?
Happyman include me in this discussion. Im lurking since you created this thread. Im lost lang when you and cedi discuss some words na out of my coverage. but don’t worry i’m here to follow this excellent topic.
Job well done bro!
|
Cedi
|
Some notes:
1. I interacted with Happyman because his topic has valid points worthy of discussion.
2. The jokes posted here are like jokes from Jojo A: All The Way. Really. It’s probably deliberate. The fact that the show is still there is a joke already.
3. If Happyman is indeed from the College of Philosophy, uhm…even in UP STANDARDS, the language of Philo is highly complex. Magtagalog na lang tayo. Yun nga lang, pakitagalog po ang ABSTRACT. Balik nosebleed tayo pag di natin mai translate yan. :p
4. Sasabayan ko English ng thread na to pero pag kailangan ko pang mag research kay Plato, Aristotle, at Socrates, ay powtek. Those guys aren’t even funny and they just got famous because they have too much time on their hands.
|
walrus
|
^e baka naman kaya nagpo-post ka dito at english to the max ka e dahil sa ego trip? ayaw mong may nakakaangat sayo sa pag-eenglish na nakaka-nosebleed? baka lang naman, correct me if i’m wrong.
but of course, you won’t admit it, hehe.
anyway, carry on, gents. :aprub:
onT: eto, something REALLY humorous (or close to that, maybe):
Q: Anong kotse ang sosy?
A: E di [b]HON[i]DUH![/i][/b]
Q: E ano naman yung MAS sosy na kotse?
A: E di [b]MAZ[i]DUH![/i][/b]
|
sanzo
|
[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f3SZ5Tu916o/SH-kZ9jJbvI/AAAAAAAAHLk/E89j6GhGcw8/s400/Serious-Cat-Joker.jpg[/img]
[img]http://cdn3.knowyourmeme.com/i/9992/original/serious-business-police.jpg?1250726993[/img]
|
hot_x
|
Ang surreal lang ng thread na ‘to.
Keep it up guys. :aprub:
|
