Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

this is a thread where everyone post there best original jokes. 

 

This is not a barroom conversation it is a collection of particulars for a theory of humor i am developing. 

My current theory states that the humor is the metaphysical negation of a proposition.
When applied on moral proposition it is ridicule. That is why the villains in Atlas Shrugged make you laugh, especially with the reality of the heroes.

So please post jokes and analyze them to your explanations if you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've often thought that a philosophy of humor is tied to the contradiction of reason. I've been meaning to get around to more thought about that, so this conversation is interesting to me. I wonder: Is all humor tied to a negation of reality in some way, or a contradiction of propositions, as you say?

 

Anyway: What time do you go to the dentist? Tooth-hurty.

(not original)

Edited by secondhander

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Importance of Following Directions

Sir, she said ' You may use the ladies room if you promise not to touch any of the buttons on the wall.'

He did what he needed to, and as he sat there he noticed the buttons he had promised not to touch.

Each button was identified by letters: WW , WA , PP, and a red one labeled ATR.

Who would know if he touched them?

He couldn't resist. He pushed WW. Warm water was sprayed gently upon his bottom.

What a nice feeling, he thought. Men's restrooms don't have nice things like this.

Anticipating greater pleasure, he pushed the WA button. Warm air replaced the warm water, gently drying his underside.

When this stopped, he pushed the PP button. A large powder puff caressed his bottom adding a fragile scent of spring flower to this unbelievable pleasure. The ladies restroom was more than a restroom, it is tender loving pleasure.

When the powder puff completed its pleasure, he couldn't wait to push the ATR button which he knew would be supreme ecstasy.

Next thing he knew he opened his eyes, he was in a hospital bed, and a nurse was staring down at him.

'What happened?' he exclaimed. The last thing I remember was pushing the ATR button.

'The button ATR is an Automatic Tampon Remover. Your penis is under your pillow.'

Edited by OhReally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

This is not the negation of a proposition. It is an assertion that substitutes the expected word for an unexpected one in a well-known phrase. The substituted words are homophones,

I think this joke demonstrates that expectation has a big place in humor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My "jokes" are usually like this:

 

Why'd the fat kid fall off his bike?


Because his mom threw a refrigerator at him.

 

 

This is probably why Norm Macdonald is one of my favorite comedians though...I'm obv not as funny as him but often easiest way to get my friends to laugh is just in the way you tell the story...and the timing I honestly think having ADHD can lend to humor because of non-sequiturs, silly mistakes and unique storytelling styles lol.

 

I've thought about this a lot too. Because the same joke on paper might go from being stupid, to hilarious if delivered correctly. I think a lot of it is in the satisfaction the audience gets in connecting the dots, and understanding the implied part of a joke. Or for some jokes it's the surprise and delight at detecting something outrageous or incongruous with your expectations. 

 

I think you'd have to analyze the many types of humor. (spoof, parody, etc) individually. 

Edited by Ben Archer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a phone routine byPhyllis Diller (whom Rand couldn't stand): "Hi Honey, I was in a little fender-bender down at Post and Geary...Post and Geary don't cross?......Well they do now."

 

My repertoire is larger than that, but the others are in appalling taste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From Counting Crows to Talking Crows – an interesting advance in their "Bostonian" Crow Epistemology
 
Researchers for the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority found over 200 dead crows near greater Boston recently, and there was concern that they may have died from avian flu.  A bird pathologist examined the remains of all the crows, and, to everyone's relief, confirmed the problem was definitely not avian flu.
 
The cause of death appeared to be vehicular impacts.
 
However, during the detailed analysis it was noted that varying colors of paints appeared on the bird's beaks and claws.  By analyzing these paint residues it was determined that 98% of the crows had been killed by impact with trucks, while only 2% were killed by an impact with a car.
 
MTA then hired an ornithological behaviorist to determine if there was a cause for the disproportionate percentages of truck kills versus car kills.
 
The ornithological behaviorist very quickly concluded the cause:  When crows eat road kill, they always have a lookout crow in a nearby tree to warn of impending danger. 
 
They discovered that while all the lookout crows could shout "Cah", not a single one could shout "Truck."
Edited by OhReally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

okay, after enough instances of comedy its lets abstract!
it was already pointed out that jokes have a False Exectation. 

 

This is not the negation of a proposition. It is an assertion that substitutes the expected word for an unexpected one in a well-known phrase. The substituted words are homophones,

I think this joke demonstrates that expectation has a big place in humor.

in this case the exception is that although the word implies that since "holy" and "hell" are anti-thesis, that does not mean that "boiling the hell out of it" makes it the antitheses. 

in the comedy of a parody: take for example the inept, incompetent, brain-dead bureaucracy in a movie. If you are on the premise that these bureaucrats CAN function but don't do so because of various reasons then it makes you laugh by virtue of thinking "that's not how bureaucrats SHOULD act". But if you are on the premise that incompetence is the standard for government offices you look with pure disgust onto it since that is your evaluation of them.
The common thread to all of these situation is the application of exception. Those who laugh will think "they are not like that" and those who don't will think "they are like that".
For another example you will laugh if someone will tell that John Galt is reading his horoscope. If all else we know about him is true then that's impossible.
In essence the comedy of parody is the false exception of moral character where you expect something in reality from someone yet something else is shown.

 

When we laugh at someone the psychological effect is dismissal as "ha ha ha, hes not important". For example the student raising a serious reality oriented question to his philosophy professor. The professor, aware of his intellectual bankruptcy, can only try to ridicule the student publicly in hope of making him intimidated to ask the question. The student feels intimidated (if he is a social metaphysican) since his significance is laughed away by other people.

 

so far we have riducle of importance, false expectation of character and expectation of a word definition.

as a perfary we can add that in mentally ill people they laugh constantly when at the point where they cannot distinguish reality from there delusions.
the common instance to all of these is the saying "this cannot and is not true" or in other words negation. 
now this is not new, it was Aristotles orignal theory of comedy and the theory that Miss Rand, among other philosophers held.
In philosophical terms it is Metaphysical Negation. 

The question now arising is when does one stop luaging. For instance Dagny first said to Galt "we didnt have to take any of it seriously, it was all a senseless joke" for the Strikers it is not funny. However to the two young boy's that grew up in the Gulch the idea of such behavior will make them laugh. 
Or a student who,before starting college, hears about Kantinism or Platonism looks at them as a sideline of insanity and luaghs it out but when he goes to study philosphy he discovers the immense curroption in philosphy.
Thats my next question: when is it not serious enough to laugh at?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

okay, after enough instances of comedy its lets abstract!
it was already pointed out that jokes have a False Exectation. 

 

This is not the negation of a proposition. It is an assertion that substitutes the expected word for an unexpected one in a well-known phrase. The substituted words are homophones,

I think this joke demonstrates that expectation has a big place in humor.

in this case the exception is that although the word implies that since "holy" and "hell" are anti-thesis, that does not mean that "boiling the hell out of it" makes it the antitheses. 

in the comedy of a parody: take for example the inept, incompetent, brain-dead bureaucracy in a movie. If you are on the premise that these bureaucrats CAN function but don't do so because of various reasons then it makes you laugh by virtue of thinking "that's not how bureaucrats SHOULD act". But if you are on the premise that incompetence is the standard for government offices you look with pure disgust onto it since that is your evaluation of them.
The common thread to all of these situation is the application of exception. Those who laugh will think "they are not like that" and those who don't will think "they are like that".
For another example you will laugh if someone will tell that John Galt is reading his horoscope. If all else we know about him is true then that's impossible.
In essence the comedy of parody is the false exception of moral character where you expect something in reality from someone yet something else is shown.

 

When we laugh at someone the psychological effect is dismissal as "ha ha ha, hes not important". For example the student raising a serious reality oriented question to his philosophy professor. The professor, aware of his intellectual bankruptcy, can only try to ridicule the student publicly in hope of making him intimidated to ask the question. The student feels intimidated (if he is a social metaphysican) since his significance is laughed away by other people.

 

so far we have riducle of importance, false expectation of character and expectation of a word definition.

as a perfary we can add that in mentally ill people they laugh constantly when at the point where they cannot distinguish reality from there delusions.
the common instance to all of these is the saying "this cannot and is not true" or in other words negation. 
now this is not new, it was Aristotles orignal theory of comedy and the theory that Miss Rand, among other philosophers held.
In philosophical terms it is Metaphysical Negation. 

The question now arising is when does one stop luaging. For instance Dagny first said to Galt "we didnt have to take any of it seriously, it was all a senseless joke" for the Strikers it is not funny. However to the two young boy's that grew up in the Gulch the idea of such behavior will make them laugh. 
Or a student who,before starting college, hears about Kantinism or Platonism looks at them as a sideline of insanity and luaghs it out but when he goes to study philosphy he discovers the immense curroption in philosphy.
Thats my next question: when is it not serious enough to laugh at?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Critical" Thinking 

 

Woman: Do you drink beer?

Man:      Yes

 

Woman: How many beers a day?

 Man:      Usually about 3

 

Woman: How much do you pay per beer?

Man:      $5.00 which includes a tip

 

 

Woman: And how long have you been drinking?

 Man:      About 20 years, I suppose

 

Woman: So a beer costs $5 and you have 3 beers a day which puts your spending

               each month at $450. In one year, it would be approximately $5400 …correct?

Man:       Correct

 

Woman: If in 1 year you spend $5400, not accounting for inflation, the past

               20 years puts  your spending at $108,000, correct?

 Man:      Correct

 

Woman: Do you know that if you didn't drink so much beer, that money could have

               been put in a step-up interest savings account and after accounting for

               compound interest for the past 20 years, you could have now bought a Ferrari?

Man:       Do you drink beer?

 

Woman: No

 Man:      Where's your Ferrari?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob: "Did you hear about the Obama administration scandal?,
 Jim: "You mean the Mexican gun running?"
 Bob: "No, the other one."
 Jim: "You mean SEAL Team 6?"
 Bob: "No, the other one."
 Jim: "You mean the State Dept. lying about Benghazi?"
 Bob: "No, the other one."
 im: "You mean voter fraud?"
 Bob: "No, the other one."
 Jim: "You mean the military not getting their votes counted?"
 Bob: "No, the other one."
 Jim: "The NSA monitoring our phone calls, emails and everything else?"
 Bob: "No, the other one."
 Jim: "You mean the of drones in our own country without the benefit of the law?"
 Bob: "No, the other one."
 Jim: "Giving 123 Technologies $300 Million and right after it declared bankruptcy and was sold to the Chinese?"
 Bob: "No, the other one."
 Jim: "You mean the president arming the Muslim Brotherhood?"
 Bob: "No the other one:.
 Jim: "The IRS targeting conservatives?"
 Bob: "No, the other one."
 Jim: "The DOJ spying on the press?"
 Bob: "No, the other one."
 Jim: "Sebelius shaking down health insurance executives?"
 Bob: "No, the other one."
 Jim: "Giving SOLYNDRA $500 MILLION DOLLARS and 3 months later they declared bankruptcy and then the Chinese bought it?"
 Bob: "No, the other one."
 Jim: "The NSA monitoring our phone calls, emails and everything else?"
 Bob: "No, the other one."
 Jim: "The president's ordering the release of nearly 10,000 illegal immigrants from jails and prisons, and falsely blaming the sequester?"
 Bob: "No, the other one."
 Jim: "The president's threat to impose gun control by Executive Order in order to bypass Congress?"
 Bob: "No, the other one."
 Jim: "The president's repeated violation of the law requiring him to submit a budget no later than the first Monday in February?"
 Bob: "No, the other one."
 Jim: "The 2012 vote where 115% of all registered voters in some counties voted 100% for Obama?"
 Bob: "No, the other one."
 Jim: "The president's unconstitutional recess appointments in an attempt to circumvent the Senate's advise-and-consent role?"
 Bob: "No, the other one."
 Jim: "The State Department interfering with an Inspector General investigation on departmental sexual misconduct?"
 Bob: "No, the other one."
 Jim: "Clinton, the IRS, Clapper and Holder all lying to Congress?"
 Bob: "No, the other one."
 Jim: "I give up! ... Oh wait, I think I got it! You mean that 65 million low-information voters who don't pay taxes and get free stuff from taxpayers and stuck us again with the most pandering, corrupt administration in American history?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...