On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 6:15 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > At other levels I think we should be ridiculing such matters as the > absence of disabled people in politically correct newsrooms and such.
What about Chris Mathews? budda bump bump Charles Krauthammer, in contrast, is a paraplegic but ok from the neck up. Most people don't even know about his disability because it's not relavent. We like his commentary. dj On Saturday, November 24, 2012 6:15:40 PM UTC-6, archytas wrote: > > The Brits do more nob gags and used to pack theatres to see a guy play > the trombone with ass-gas- needless to say a Frenchman. Audience > milking is central to some humour - this tends to put me off, but some > are so good at it I don't notice until afterwards. US comedy films > are usually dross, but your stand-ups usually great. My recent > favourite is 'The Pope's Toilet' from Uruguay. The hero rides a bike > everywhere and his wife describes him as lacking pump for a bicycle > man. Why do the French smell? So even the blind can hate them. Why > would you find an Irishman in the Alps? Where else would you find a > downhill lake. Irish jokes are Belgian, Polish and Swedish etc. > > At other levels I think we should be ridiculing such matters as the > absence of disabled people in politically correct newsrooms and such. > > On 24 Nov, 21:46, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Over here, social workers have taken kids off foster parents because > > of their membership of UKIP - a party that shares the desire of 65% of > > the population to leave the EU and restrict immigration. You have to > > laugh - or cry! > > > > On 24 Nov, 21:38, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Morecambe and Wise with Mum and Dad at Xmas perhaps. Laurel and > > > Hardy. Many other popular comedians are more likely to make me weep. > > > I never liked Chaplin (actually thinking Hitler more of a comedian > > > than 'The Dictator') and we had Cannon and Ball here who hit a nerve I > > > don't like. I can laugh with some of the ostensibly more vicious > > > types like Bill Hicks and Frankie Boyle. Police and army culture > > > reveres tough, sadistic humour with self-depreciation thrown in. > > > > > I'm against speech crime but it's also clear not everything goes. I > > > don't agree with the Greek split - it's from Stanford EP - suspecting > > > humour is closely linked with breakthrough thinking (though not the > > > same) and unseating the biological trance of hierarchy (The Name of > > > the Rose). > > > > > The SEP article concludes: > > > > > Along with the idealism of tragedy goes elitism. The people who matter > > > in tragedy are kings, queens, and generals. In comedy there are more > > > characters and more kinds of characters, women are more prominent, and > > > many protagonists come from lower classes. Everybody counts for one. > > > That shows in the language of comedy, which, unlike the elevated > > > language of tragedy, is common speech. The basic unit in tragedy is > > > the individual, in comedy it is the family, group of friends, or bunch > > > of co-workers. > > > > > While tragic heroes are emotionally engaged with their problems, comic > > > protagonists show emotional disengagement. They think, rather than > > > feel, their way through difficulties. By presenting such characters as > > > role models, comedy has implicitly valorized the benefits of humor > > > that are now being empirically verified, such as that it is > > > psychologically and physically healthy, it fosters mental flexibility, > > > and it serves as a social lubricant. With a few exceptions like > > > Aquinas, philosophers have ignored these benefits. > > > > > If philosophers wanted to undo the traditional prejudices against > > > humor, they might consider the affinities between one contemporary > > > genre of comedy—standup comedy—and philosophy itself. There are at > > > least seven. First, standup comedy and philosophy are conversational: > > > like the dialogue format that started with Plato, standup routines are > > > interactive. Second, both reflect on familiar experiences, especially > > > puzzling ones. We wake from a vivid dream, for example, not sure what > > > has happened and what is happening. Third, like philosophers, standup > > > comics often approach puzzling experiences with questions. “If I > > > thought that dream was real, how do I know that I'm not dreaming right > > > now?” The most basic starting point in both philosophy and standup > > > comedy is “X—what's up with that?” Fourth, as they think about > > > familiar experiences, both philosophers and comics step back > > > emotionally from them. Henri Bergson (1911 [1900]) spoke of the > > > “momentary anaesthesia of the heart” in laughter. Emotional > > > disengagement long ago became a meaning of “philosophical”—“rational, > > > sensibly composed, calm, as in a difficult situation.” Fifth, > > > philosophers and standup comics think critically. They ask whether > > > familiar ideas make sense, and they refuse to defer to authority and > > > tradition. It was for his critical thinking that Socrates was > > > executed. So were cabaret comics in Germany who mocked the Third > > > Reich. Sixth, in thinking critically, philosophers and standup comics > > > pay careful attention to language. Attacking sloppy and illogical uses > > > of words is standard in both, and so is finding exactly the right > > > words to express an idea. Seventh, the pleasure of standup comedy is > > > often like the pleasure of doing philosophy. In both we relish new > > > ways of looking at things and delight in surprising thoughts. William > > > James (1979 [1911], 11) said that philosophy “sees the familiar as if > > > it were strange, and the strange as if it were familiar.” The same is > > > true of standup comedy. Simon Critchley has written that both ask us > > > to “look at things as if you had just landed from another > > > planet” (2002, 1). > > > > > One recent philosopher attuned to the affinity between comedy and > > > philosophy was Bertrand Russell. “The point of philosophy,” he said, > > > “is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, > > > and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe > > > it” (1918, 53). In the middle of an argument, he once observed, “This > > > seems plainly absurd: but whoever wishes to become a philosopher must > > > learn not to be frightened by absurdities” (2008 [1912], 17). > > > > > I laughed a lot more reading Lyotard's 'Libidinal Economy' - rather as > > > I might chuckle along with a Tom Sharpe farce. I'm not sure what > > > makes me laugh until it does. The ideologies through which people > > > live lives often does, but this is without joy. > > > > > On 24 Nov, 19:40, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I have seen it used recently as an ineffective cover for a badly > > > > positioned provocative argument. "I was only kidding, she doesn't > > > > understand my humor..." not hard to see through and not inspiring > > > > confidence. The dance of the fool. > > > > > > Kind humor, irony, absurd, surprise are more my style than sarcasm > or > > > > more aggressive humor that derides or shames. > > > > > > There is no denying the biochemical rush that comes with laughing > > > > oneself to tears, and the joy that comes with sharing such a moment. > > > > > > On Nov 24, 1:51 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > While there is only speculation about how humor developed in early > > > > > humans, we know that by the 6th century BCE the Greeks had > > > > > institutionalized it in the ritual known as comedy, and that it > was > > > > > performed with a contrasting dramatic form known as tragedy. Both > were > > > > > based on the violation of mental patterns and expectations, and in > > > > > both the world is a tangle of conflicting systems where humans > live in > > > > > the shadow of failure, folly, and death. Like tragedy, comedy > > > > > represents life as full of tension, danger, and struggle, with > success > > > > > or failure often depending on chance factors. Where they differ is > in > > > > > the responses of the lead characters to life's incongruities. > > > > > Identifying with these characters, audiences at comedies and > tragedies > > > > > have contrasting responses to events in the dramas. And because > these > > > > > responses carry over to similar situations in life, comedy and > tragedy > > > > > embody contrasting responses to the incongruities in life. > > > > > > > Tragedy valorizes serious, emotional engagement with life's > problems, > > > > > even struggle to the death. Along with epic, it is part of the > Western > > > > > heroic tradition that extols ideals, the willingness to fight for > > > > > them, and honor. The tragic ethos is linked to patriarchy and > > > > > militarism—many of its heroes are kings and conquerors—and it > > > > > valorizes what Conrad Hyers (1996) calls Warrior Virtues—blind > > > > > obedience, the willingness to kill or die on command, > unquestioning > > > > > loyalty, single-mindedness, resoluteness of purpose, and pride. > > > > > > > Comedy, by contrast, embodies an anti-heroic, pragmatic attitude > > > > > toward life's incongruities. From Aristophanes' Lysistrata to > Charlie > > > > > Chaplin's The Great Dictator to Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, > > > > > comedy has mocked the irrationality of militarism and blind > respect > > > > > for authority. Its own methods of handling conflict include deal- > > > > > making, trickery, getting an enemy drunk, and running away. As the > > > > > Irish saying goes, you're only a coward for a moment, but you're > dead > > > > > for the rest of your life. In place of Warrior Virtues, it extols > > > > > critical thinking, cleverness, adaptability, and an appreciation > of > > > > > physical pleasures like eating, drinking, and sex. > > > > > > > Much humour is cruel - but try and read cruelty in to 'Doctor, > doctor, > > > > > I've lost an electron'. 'Are you sure'? 'Yes, I'm positive'. > > > > > > > What do we think humour is? > --
