Philosophy Now Forum

Many theories on humour have been proposed I think, some more extensively than others. But to me there seems to be just one really generic function of humour: that when there's something which doesn't really makes us care... that is, something for which we don't have any emotions about or which doesn't make us reason, we use humour to absorb the meaninglessness of that thing.

Not because we want to give it deep meaning, but because in relation to other people, it works as an "empty bridge"... consider it the same as "empty calories" in stuff like McDonalds burgers and chocolates... it's not that it's de facto empty, it's just that it doesn't have much of a meaningful substance like when we emotionally attach ourselves to things, or end up exploring things with a detectives mind. The empty calories in unhealthy food is considered empty because either they are excessive, more than we can use efficiently, or because they don't come with the necessary additional ingredients to process them properly: like vitamins, iron, fiber, etc.

In the same way, humour allows us to enjoy something that's completely meaningless by itself, but which we can use to bridge thoughts in our mind to create connections that relieve our mind off hard and rigid structures. These softening connections should increase the efficiency of our mind by relieving it of problems associated with inflexibility, however, likewise it should also slow down the existing connections, therefore, humour can also make us inefficient, which can could potentially happen in very soft minds, something for which we can use the real world as an example of, where soft minded people lack the resolve to efficiently execute tasks, whereas hard-minded people can target and engage the problem easier, however, the result is not always that an ability to engage is best, as is proven by the virtues of creativity and flexible perspectives (as a note, people's mind is not unary either soft or hard, we all have soft and hard corners of our minds, and what's talked about here is the act of being soft- or hardminded in situations).

In this way, I'd like to propose the usefulness of humour in being a tool for which we can explore ideas and concepts and phenomena without having to directly "attack" the thing in question, but instead, kind of chaotically "melt" into it, which causes us not always reliable results, but statistically it'll likely make us more capable, if not always towards a pre-determined goal.

Humour's relationship with happiness is such that when the mind falls into a pit, a hard and rigid structure will keep it in the pit, whereas a soft mind can channel the "liquid thoughts" into other parts of the mind, and therefore cause the experience of "relief". However, humour is an example of a likely possible "leverage" of happiness, because what goes one way, could also go back. However, with humour you could "leverage your way out of misery", because you'll make the problems so small compared to the amount of connections, that your mind will bury the thoughts statistically speaking in a minimal risk situation, where the likelihood for slipping into a specific thought is minimized in general, however, it might also potentially be easier to fall back should the right stimulus occur, that said, the right stimulus should also easier take you away and onto other things... so basically, this is an example where the leverage of happiness serves a very positive function, whereas, and I think I will come to talk about this elsewhere in future threads, I'll show more examples of where leverage of happiness causes more problems than it's worth.

Simply, it's also used to cover up emotional pain!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Simply, it's also used to cover up emotional pain!

Well covering up is a social action mostly, or a third person action bent on yourself (like the mirror image you create of yourself in evaluating your self-esteem and pride). You might alleviate emotional pain without resorting to "covering up", or the social action of taking upon a role in which you do not express emotional pain. You might simply focus on something else, not giving it priority in your act of living. As such your intentionality is not the covering up, but a redistribution influence, and your result as such.

It should not be viewed as such though, as "covering up emotional pain" is a metaphysical property, whereas what i'm talking about you can study and measure and test.

the most primitive forms of humour are laughing at the misfortune of others, to alleviate anxiety and grinning when you are feeling threatened, to present a less fearful demeanour. Many high apes show this sort of behaviour which has lead anthropologists to theorise where humour came from.

Humour now is more complicated, it's more about social satire than some sort of pre history junk, and mostly it is a way people can come together and laugh at the foibles of people, and hopefully at the same time feel better about themselves, "see that numb nut is as stupid as I am, so I laugh."

It also plays a valuable roll in social coherence amongst cultures, we often share a similar sense of humour amongst our fellow countrymen, although there is a problem with seeing your humour as superlative, this is a unique type of social bonding that even other high order species lack.

Humour's relationship with happiness is such that when the mind falls into a pit, a hard and rigid structure will keep it in the pit, whereas a soft mind can channel the "liquid thoughts" into other parts of the mind, and therefore cause the experience of "relief". However, humour is an example of a likely possible "leverage" of happiness, because what goes one way, could also go back. However, with humour you could "leverage your way out of misery", because you'll make the problems so small compared to the amount of connections, that your mind will bury the thoughts statistically speaking in a minimal risk situation, where the likelihood for slipping into a specific thought is minimized in general, however, it might also potentially be easier to fall back should the right stimulus occur, that said, the right stimulus should also easier take you away and onto other things... so basically, this is an example where the leverage of happiness serves a very positive function, whereas, and I think I will come to talk about this elsewhere in future threads, I'll show more examples of where leverage of happiness causes more problems than it's worth.

I disagree humour lets us experience the faults of others and in doing so shows us a more moral outlook vicariously, even if it seems quite vindictive, such as yo mama so fat jokes, it allows a sort of social shared experience in that some things are acceptable and some are not, and those that are not are poked fun of in a genuine attempt to say eating 24 cheeseburgers every day and then dying of a heart attack at age 40 is just plain stupid and should be the subject of ridicule. Times change though it was once au fait to poke fun at homosexuals, and it was once au fait to ridicule the colour of someone's skin. As long as humour isn't overstepping social paradigms it is quite beneficial.

"Thy mother!"

"Oh yeah well thy father!"

Shakespeare.

The Voice of Time wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Simply, it's also used to cover up emotional pain!

Well covering up is a social action mostly, or a third person action bent on yourself (like the mirror image you create of yourself in evaluating your self-esteem and pride). You might alleviate emotional pain without resorting to "covering up", or the social action of taking upon a role in which you do not express emotional pain. You might simply focus on something else, not giving it priority in your act of living. As such your intentionality is not the covering up, but a redistribution influence, and your result as such.

It should not be viewed as such though, as "covering up emotional pain" is a metaphysical property, whereas what i'm talking about you can study and measure and test.

I don't think you understand, I'm talking about the truth of things, in daily living! We were advised that during the holidays people in emotional distress that are alone tend to commit suicide. And to watch for the warning signs, excessive humor, being one of the main indicators, when it's known that someone has been dealt a hard personal blow. This friend of mine, living alone, during a festive season, was always cutting up (humor), though unfortunately I was in no position to judge this relatively speaking, as our friendship wasn't long lived, like others in our shop. He hung himself by the neck until dead, his left hand was shattered the forensic pathologist had determined during his attempt to free himself after committing. The family allowed me to see him in his coffin because I made the long trip, hundreds of miles, to pay my respects. His head and face was blown up like a balloon, such that I couldn't even recognize him, the blood kept collecting above his make-shift noose, his necktie, I thought about how he was especially humorous just prior to him committing suicide, and wished I'd known more about him, so as to possibly lift his spirits and prevent an unnecessary death, so he said, with his shattered hand.

So my question is are you investigating this so as to possibly help someone in the real world, to gain some 'real world' knowledge, or is just the dictation of your view, as if you could know it all, thus discounting real world data? By the way, it was the US DOD that advised us of this "Humor" used to "cover-up" emotional distress, and you'd be well advised to pay attention, lest you potentially experience what I had to go through, the loss of life, that may have been prevented, had you paid more attention. I mean if philosophy can't be used in a real world scenario, then it's just a bunch of hot air, don't you think?

If you discount what I've said, then your "theory" seems to have fallen short. And indeed I'd say that death can be a "consequence" of not heeding the warning signs, of abnormally excessive humor.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I don't think you understand, I'm talking about the truth of things, in daily living! We were advised that during the holidays people in emotional distress that are alone tend to commit suicide. And to watch for the warning signs, excessive humor, being one of the main indicators, when it's known that someone has been dealt a hard personal blow.

That's not normal humour, it's closer to frantic laughter, and it's equivalent to the difference between normal heart beats and heart failure, where the heart beats fast in order to quickly try and overcome the build-up of shortages. Normal humour will over a long time build up a resilient mind, but it doesn't work as a quick medicine, although somebody might try this, like the heart tries to beat faster even though this doesn't work fully.

Blaggard

I think you are giving humour too much rational and psychological meaning, and so does the science for which you address and for which fails to see the bigger picture... humour is not merely "laughter", and laughter is not always humour, and humour is not something we choose to engage in because we want to score points in our social lives (then it's not proper humour, but theatrical acting, like fake laughs).

Humour instead is a category of personal experiences entrusted upon you, rooted in neuroendocrinology. What you talk about sounds like really patchy science, akin to the view of an anthropologist and psychologist, but both anthropology and psychology is social and not natural science (in my view psychology isn't proper science at all, but that's another discussion), it does not give ultimate explanations but only hints at the actual ultimate explanation found in the natural sciences.

Because humans are such a big part of our lives, and because other people notice our laughter and smiling more than we do, it might strike someone easily as a social thing, but humour does not require people around to work. A funny picture of a cat on the internet can make me laugh out loud in my room by myself, so can funny looking items of various sorts. No human beings needs to be involved in any part of the process... there's a reason why we can laugh at funny stories for Allah's sake, although it's just text!

That said, other people would be fundamental to the development of humour, because of the way other people help us create "meaning" in "culture", culture here understood in the vague sense. There must be meaning before we can create "empty bridges", or in other words a foundation before we create the hallways.

Other people also encourage or discourage the natural flow of humour in us as we interact with things, because they tell us no and yes and otherwise communicate such as to allow or disallow us to act on our nature. But we don't do it because of them, you can't make something funny just because one person of importance finds it funny for instance, that's like those movie scenes where the one mad guy laughs fully or partially sincerely and everyone is like giving off small fake laughs to not look suspicious. However, a comedian can find your spots and trigger that natural flow, which is why we consider comedians funny in general.

When I look at your text, it sounds more like evolutionary mumbo jumbo to me than actual science. Evolutionary theory does not give useful explanations to things more than history does, which is it doesn't say anything about the definite limits and capabilities of what is in question, making it rather narrowed and single-minded, it just accounts for what may have been done with it and how this was allowed to work. Completely uninteresting to someone who wants to know how to shape their own future, which is what every scientist should want to know.

I must also address the fact that you say "humour lets us experience the faults of others and in doing so shows us a more moral outlook vicariously" when this is only a small fraction of what humour can be and is, it is in no way representative for humour in general, instead it's a particular category (perhaps you've seen too many Chaplin movies?). Social paradigms don't stop anyone from thinking something is funny. I once knew a black dude who made jokes about his own skin colour, particularly it was a situation where we were in the stables at the farm I grew up on, and flies were flocking to him, and he was like "do these flies think I'm shit or what!?", comparing his own skin colour to horse-shit which is a favourite cuisine for flies, and that was quite funny in that instance, but as completely politically incorrect as it could be. With my buddy I also joke about all sorts of politically incorrect stuff, so again, the social paradigm doesn't stop us. Society does not decide what's funny, the way individuals are treated through their lives depends how easy they may find something funny, and individuals differ.

I refute all that you said, and demand that you show me how exactly your explanation explains more than mine, because my explanation consists of a wide arrange of inferences that stretches from it, whereas yours, kind of standard answer, has a very narrowed and inflexible structure.

The Voice of Time wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I don't think you understand, I'm talking about the truth of things, in daily living! We were advised that during the holidays people in emotional distress that are alone tend to commit suicide. And to watch for the warning signs, excessive humor, being one of the main indicators, when it's known that someone has been dealt a hard personal blow.

That's not normal humour, it's closer to frantic laughter, and it's equivalent to the difference between normal heart beats and heart failure, where the heart beats fast in order to quickly try and overcome the build-up of shortages. Normal humour will over a long time build up a resilient mind, but it doesn't work as a quick medicine, although somebody might try this, like the heart tries to beat faster even though this doesn't work fully.

You didn't specify, and it really doesn't matter, in order to save a life, characterize is as you will, but pay attention, if you want to save a life. And no, his humor didn't seem frantic at all, yet he's dead!

I think that largely you try to rationalize in your head from textbook material, while I, in my 56 years of life, draw on experience, in addition to books, which isn't always kind, and as antiseptically cleansed, removed, isolated, as material in a book of dry facts! Not that I'm putting you down, just stating a fact.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I don't think you understand, I'm talking about the truth of things, in daily living! We were advised that during the holidays people in emotional distress that are alone tend to commit suicide. And to watch for the warning signs, excessive humor, being one of the main indicators, when it's known that someone has been dealt a hard personal blow. This friend of mine, living alone, during a festive season, was always cutting up (humor), though unfortunately I was in no position to judge this relatively speaking, as our friendship wasn't long lived, like others in our shop. He hung himself by the neck until dead, his left hand was shattered the forensic pathologist had determined during his attempt to free himself after committing. The family allowed me to see him in his coffin because I made the long trip, hundreds of miles, to pay my respects. His head and face was blown up like a balloon, such that I couldn't even recognize him, the blood kept collecting above his make-shift noose, his necktie, I thought about how he was especially humorous just prior to him committing suicide, and wished I'd known more about him, so as to possibly lift his spirits and prevent an unnecessary death, so he said, with his shattered hand.

I don't need all the gory details, that he's dead and tried to free himself should summarize it sufficiently.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:So my question is are you investigating this so as to possibly help someone in the real world, to gain some 'real world' knowledge, or is just the dictation of your view, as if you could know it all, thus discounting real world data?

Am I investigating suicidalness? Not really a lot, though I have some personal experience with it, I once tested my own will to commit suicide at a time I was really shattered, and I know a girl which has a lot of trauma from her friend committing suicide and her own occasional slip into the pit of dark thoughts. I've pondered about its nature of course, but I don't know if there's a lot to say about it. People obsessing with the wrong ideas is practically the singular cause for it, I'd say, or, an obsession at the more subconscious level, are people who has mismanaged their own psyche and their subconsciousness isn't able to cope with it... I live with a war veteran, so I know a slight bit how it makes people... war. But I'm of the persuasion, that big damage requires big heals, so you exchange a trauma for an intensive positive experience that has lasting benefits, however, it'd take years, which is the reason why probably every single psychiatric hospital in the world is understaffed, as it takes so much effort to heal a person who can't heal itself, that it's hard to acquire the resources to do so... there's a likelihood you'd also have to be "forced to be happy" in some cases where the trauma is so powerful it has turned your mind into one big bad thoughts industrial complex.

Can humour help? Certainly. Can humour do all the work? Absolutely not. Humour is complementary to other positive experiences, like a sense of pride (you may suffer from shame or inferiority complexes, and have to reshape your identity), prospects about the future (something to look forward to... like a kid growing up and making their life, or joining media cultures, like games, movies, music where you can share group identity, try out new virtual worlds, relax and focus on something else and make this your new direction for thoughts), good-hearted atmosphere (the feeling that people don't want you harm and that you are welcome) and intellectual stimulus (but not in a stressful manner).

SpheresOfBalance wrote:By the way, it was the US DOD that advised us of this "Humor" used to "cover-up" emotional distress, and you'd be well advised to pay attention, lest you potentially experience what I had to go through, the loss of life, that may have been prevented, had you paid more attention. I mean if philosophy can't be used in a real world scenario, then it's just a bunch of hot air, don't you think?

Philosophy can be used in the real world, philosophy is a development of perspectives that increases your arsenal of problem solving capabilities, and not talking about philosophical problems, but real life problems. But philosophy is usually at such a basic level, that everything you create, needs extensive development and refining later on to reach its potential. When I work on stuff like this and my science of needs, I'm ever trying to develop and refine it to go from generalized theory to everyday life applications. But I don't start from random assumptions, I know something has potential, most of the time, before I start developing it extensively. Some of it is less useful though, like my cumbersome "theory or relativity", but that was just because I had the thought in my head, so I might as well get it out and explore what it was I had in my head. But with my science of needs I'm aiming to give definite answers to some of the biggest problems of our time, and problems that really matter in our everyday life, in fact I consider it the most practical science ever created! But because I'm at such an early stage, it's hard to prove that, as I'm still trying to figure out how to best communicate it all x)

SpheresOfBalance wrote:If you discount what I've said, then your "theory" seems to have fallen short. And indeed I'd say that death can be a "consequence" of not heeding the warning signs, of abnormally excessive humor.

Humour is not the cause of death, it is just a "warning sign", as you yourself say It's caused by despair, which tries to humour, which the body knows helps, but doesn't realize that it's already doomed and that no humour will be able to be sufficient before the sense of self melts away completely.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I think that largely you try to rationalize in your head from textbook material, while I, in my 56 years of life, draw on experience, in addition to books, which isn't always kind, and as antiseptically cleansed, removed, isolated, as material in a book of dry facts! Not that I'm putting you down, just stating a fact.

Well some experience I do have, I'd dare say more than most my age. But truth is not arrived at by age and experience, you also need to filter the experience correctly, and you may be missing a point which I'm trying to make. In my case I make big theories about general truths, and these might seem abstract in the face of direct experience, but that doesn't make them less true, no less than abstract math is in comparison to the physical objects they might describe.

So when I make a theory, I would try to do the same as mathematical physicists try to do when they try to come up with a good mathematical description of physical phenomena.

The Voice of Time wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I don't think you understand, I'm talking about the truth of things, in daily living! We were advised that during the holidays people in emotional distress that are alone tend to commit suicide. And to watch for the warning signs, excessive humor, being one of the main indicators, when it's known that someone has been dealt a hard personal blow. This friend of mine, living alone, during a festive season, was always cutting up (humor), though unfortunately I was in no position to judge this relatively speaking, as our friendship wasn't long lived, like others in our shop. He hung himself by the neck until dead, his left hand was shattered the forensic pathologist had determined during his attempt to free himself after committing. The family allowed me to see him in his coffin because I made the long trip, hundreds of miles, to pay my respects. His head and face was blown up like a balloon, such that I couldn't even recognize him, the blood kept collecting above his make-shift noose, his necktie, I thought about how he was especially humorous just prior to him committing suicide, and wished I'd known more about him, so as to possibly lift his spirits and prevent an unnecessary death, so he said, with his shattered hand.

I don't need all the gory details, that he's dead and tried to free himself should summarize it sufficiently.
How does anyone know what you need, do you think everyone a mind reader?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:So my question is are you investigating this so as to possibly help someone in the real world, to gain some 'real world' knowledge, or is just the dictation of your view, as if you could know it all, thus discounting real world data?

Am I investigating suicidalness? Not really a lot, though I have some personal experience with it, I once tested my own will to commit suicide at a time I was really shattered, and I know a girl which has a lot of trauma from her friend committing suicide and her own occasional slip into the pit of dark thoughts. I've pondered about its nature of course, but I don't know if there's a lot to say about it. People obsessing with the wrong ideas is practically the singular cause for it, I'd say, or, an obsession at the more subconscious level, are people who has mismanaged their own psyche and their subconsciousness isn't able to cope with it... I live with a war veteran, so I know a slight bit how it makes people... war. But I'm of the persuasion, that big damage requires big heals, so you exchange a trauma for an intensive positive experience that has lasting benefits, however, it'd take years, which is the reason why probably every single psychiatric hospital in the world is understaffed, as it takes so much effort to heal a person who can't heal itself, that it's hard to acquire the resources to do so... there's a likelihood you'd also have to be "forced to be happy" in some cases where the trauma is so powerful it has turned your mind into one big bad thoughts industrial complex.

Well I'm genuinely sorry that you've experienced something at such a tender age, that made you feel that way. I only felt that way once, over my child, while at a much older age. Still, it would seem both of us made it through it. Good indeed!

Can humour help? Certainly. Can humour do all the work? Absolutely not. Humour is complementary to other positive experiences, like a sense of pride (you may suffer from shame or inferiority complexes, and have to reshape your identity), prospects about the future (something to look forward to... like a kid growing up and making their life, or joining media cultures, like games, movies, music where you can share group identity, try out new virtual worlds, relax and focus on something else and make this your new direction for thoughts), good-hearted atmosphere (the feeling that people don't want you harm and that you are welcome) and intellectual stimulus (but not in a stressful manner).

It might help some, but when it stops helping, is where the problem is, often at that point, well extended into the belief of futility.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:By the way, it was the US DOD that advised us of this "Humor" used to "cover-up" emotional distress, and you'd be well advised to pay attention, lest you potentially experience what I had to go through, the loss of life, that may have been prevented, had you paid more attention. I mean if philosophy can't be used in a real world scenario, then it's just a bunch of hot air, don't you think?

Philosophy can be used in the real world, philosophy is a development of perspectives that increases your arsenal of problem solving capabilities, and not talking about philosophical problems, but real life problems. But philosophy is usually at such a basic level, that everything you create, needs extensive development and refining later on to reach its potential. When I work on stuff like this and my science of needs, I'm ever trying to develop and refine it to go from generalized theory to everyday life applications. But I don't start from random assumptions, I know something has potential, most of the time, before I start developing it extensively. Some of it is less useful though, like my cumbersome "theory or relativity", but that was just because I had the thought in my head, so I might as well get it out and explore what it was I had in my head. But with my science of needs I'm aiming to give definite answers to some of the biggest problems of our time, and problems that really matter in our everyday life, in fact I consider it the most practical science ever created! But because I'm at such an early stage, it's hard to prove that, as I'm still trying to figure out how to best communicate it all x)

Sounds good, I understand. I was, as a younger person, and still to some degree, awkward! I think the most important thing is not to try and silence someone. To always give them their due! No problem disagreeing, and sometimes possibly being cruel to be kind, if warranted, but never try and quell someones attempt at answering you in kind, they must have equal ability to expound their version of understanding, no matter how much one may think it unnecessary, as it's just a matter of perspective, in truth!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:If you discount what I've said, then your "theory" seems to have fallen short. And indeed I'd say that death can be a "consequence" of not heeding the warning signs, of abnormally excessive humor.

Humour is not the cause of death, it is just a "warning sign", as you yourself say It's caused by despair, which tries to humour, which the body knows helps, but doesn't realize that it's already doomed and that no humour will be able to be sufficient before the sense of self melts away completely.

Yes, they try to cheer themselves up, yet they are usually ignoring the problem in the process, side stepping it, if you will. It's far better to confide in a friend, that one can trust, and try and get it off their chest. Someone to sympathize and possibly provide solution, some angle that cannot be realized when one is so close to the problem, not seeing the forest for the trees, if you will?