Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Inspector

Funny vs. Not Funny

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Everything Deserves mockery, as there is no perfection.

Please show us how Ayn Rand and her system of Objectivism deserve mockery.

(This could be very telling if he actually responds.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please show us how Ayn Rand and her system of Objectivism deserve mockery.

(This could be very telling if he actually responds.)

I'm not going to respond to that, because I don't know enough of Ayn Rand (the writing anyways) to mock. Though, I'm sure people, more educated than I on the subject could find things funny.

Actually, I take that back. What I find hilarious about Objectivism, actually, some of the objectivist people, is that they sound EXACTLY like any other Religious dogma. I'm right, you're wrong that's the end of it. You're wrong because my book says you are. Personally, I find that funny.

It's sad too, because I personally believe in what she has to say. But, like anything, when taken to extremes, becomes out of control.

And how do you figure that making fun of oneself demeans your values? I think that's the most rediculous thing I've heard. There is a big difference between insulting something and making fun of a stereotype about it. I'm a drummer/percussionist. I know most of the all the drummer/musician jokes in the book. Many of them are quite funny. It has nothing to do with contradictions or demeaning of values, it merely pokes fun at the stereotype.

Another example. There was a thread I posted in, where one member said "Joy to the World!" in response to someone's breakthrough in Objectivism. I responded with "Wouldn't the objectivist song be 'Joy to yourself?' " (which in no way makes fun of Objectivism, demeans it, or anything of the sort) and I got this novel of a response explaining something that had nothing to do with a simple joke. Sometimes, if it's just not funny to you, ignore it. I thought it was funny, I thought others might see the humor in it, apparently I was wrong. But, personally, I think that in the same way that you can't take care of others until you can take care of yourself, I believe that you can't make fun of others until you can make fun of yourself.

Again, I stress that poking fun at and insulting are two VERY different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stupid double posts. I'd make a joke about it, but it probably wouldn't be funny.

While we're at it, we should probably get rid of the smiley's too.

Second edit- Does anyone else find it terribly ironic that we're taking humor this seriously?

Edited by Styles2112

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Inspector,

It is not non-Objectivist, or even false ideas as such that we love to laugh at. It is stupidity and evil in general. We laugh at those persons or actions too evil or stupid to deal with reality.

I have no problems deriding an Objectivist fool (and no, this is not necessarily a contradiction), and there are people who are not Objectivists, but do not merit derision.

Yes, I would agree with that. I didn't mean to imply that falsehood was the essential differentia of something deserving mockery, only that it was a necessary characteristic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not going to respond to that, because I don't know enough of Ayn Rand (the writing anyways) to mock.  Though, I'm sure people, more educated than I on the subject could find things funny. 

Does this mean you somehow "know" enough about Ayn Rand ( the person) to mock her?

Also later in the post you say something like "I believe Objectivism to be true". My question is why do you just "beleive" it? Either you know something's true or you don't, belief doesn't exist. So what do know? And if you know nothing admit it and be quiet because I don't think anyone here really cares about you "beliefs".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, I take that back.  What I find hilarious about Objectivism, actually, some of the objectivist people, is that they sound EXACTLY like any other Religious dogma.  I'm right, you're wrong that's the end of it.  You're wrong because my book says you are.  Personally, I find that funny.

Please demonstrate where an Objectivist has stated that the validity of his argument rests on the fact that "a book said so." You can't, because nobody here has done that!

There's a BIG difference between saying "You're wrong and this book proves it," and saying "you're wrong BECAUSE this book 'says you are.'" It would be easy to equate us with religionists if you throw in little frauds like that.

But, like anything, when taken to extremes, becomes out of control. 
That idea is so wrong, so obviously and repeatedly disproven, that I'm not even going to refute it. Instead, I submit that it is false enough to make a joke of. Any takers?

And how do you figure that making fun of oneself demeans your values?  I think that's the most rediculous thing I've heard.  There is a big difference between insulting something and making fun of a stereotype about it.

Now on this part, I think you actually misunderstand my point. The target of the humor is what is essential here. If I accidentally do something stupid, I can mock it. It's a way of saying "that stupid thing is not essential to my personage. It was out of character. I can laugh at it and it cannot harm me." The thing that must never be mocked is the GOOD. I would not mock the things I consider essentail to myself. A lawyer can mock the FLAWS of the legal system or profession, but not the virtues.

Of course, attacking the flaws of a thing while maintaining respect for the thing as a whole is a tricky thing to do. If the thing as a whole is particularly virtuous, you're flirting with bad taste. Only those very skilled in humor should attempt such a feat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everything Deserves mockery, as there is no perfection.

A lack of humour about one's beleifs and outright dogmatism are not always very far apart.

I have to say, this thread is sure pulling the bad premises out of the woodwork! I feel like I've kicked over a treestump. Let us all gaze in horror at the crawly things that hid beneath! :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now on this part, I think you actually misunderstand my point. The target of the humor is what is essential here. If I accidentally do something stupid, I can mock it. It's a way of saying "that stupid thing is not essential to my personage. It was out of character. I can laugh at it and it cannot harm me." The thing that must never be mocked is the GOOD. I would not mock the things I consider essentail to myself. A lawyer can mock the FLAWS of the legal system or profession, but not the virtues.

Of course, attacking the flaws of a thing while maintaining respect for the thing as a whole is a tricky thing to do. If the thing as a whole is particularly virtuous, you're flirting with bad taste. Only those very skilled in humor should attempt such a feat.

Of course you don't make fun of the things you can't make fun of. But EVERYTHING has at least something to be poked fun at. EVERYTHING has it's flaws. Even if minute.

I will find you those quotes, but I'm pretty sure that I will just be told how I'm taking it out of context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know you're worried about Objectivism because all you've ever seen is dogmatism and twisted lies, but don't worry: Objectivism really is The Real Deal.

But think abstractly for a second: what if you had discovered Real Truth. The kind of idea that has NO contradictions, NO ironies, etc. The kind that imposes no burden at all. Such a thing would not need any mocking. The ideas opposed to it would deserve no sanction. Thus, mocking it would be Not Funny. That's why jokes that mock our values just aren't funny to us. They are only funny to you becaue your values have contradictions. Ours don't. (or at least Objectivism doesn't)

Believe me, I know what you're talking about and I've been there. Trust me, Objectivism is like nothing else. You're in for a wild ride: sit down, hang on, and have fun! (and never stop thinking!)

This, in particular, is quite dogmatic. "We're right, all others are wrong" saying.

I shall go find more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JMegan, have you read anything by Aristotle? If not, as I suspect, then by what right do you say his bridge didn't hold up? You're alone on this, even Ayn Rand acknowledged most of her achievement as standing on Aristotle's shoulders. But even if we don't take into account her own admissions about the subject, you cannot go waving around her conclusions and claim them as your own. Whatever her conclusions were, she verified them so she has the right to speak of them with assertiveness. What have you done to verify your conclusions?

You draw the distinction between reading many books and drawing facts from reality - ignoring the enormously ominous deductive and dogmatic implications of that statement - in this discussion the books are the facts of reality. So what you're saying is that, while you admit you have examined facts pertaining to other issues, you did not examine the facts of reality pertaining to the discussion. Therefore, what you're saying is that you don't really know what you're talking about.

Here from the Atheist thread where He basically says that it's so because Ayn Rand says it's so. (Because, the "books are the facts of reality")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is a scientist dogmatic when he says light will always have one speed in a vacuuum? Is a mathematician dogmatic when he says 2+2=4?

Like those who follow any of the great thinkers, these people have a pretty intricate and wide ranging system. Like any who follow a great thinker they derive most of their ideas from that thinkers great works. None of that makes these people dogmatic.

I've been asked on creationist forums (back when I used to bother) to argue the validity of Hawking's ideas of the big bang versus someone at answersingenises.org. I didn't, I just laid out Hawking's credentials versus that of the creationist. Did that make me truly dogmatic?

You always have to see the differences between the beleifs held and the manner in which they are held. Some on this forum do have dogmatic tendencies, others do not. Nothing in Objectivist philosophy is going to make someone dogmatic, its the person who is.

Edit for misspelling (or mispelling or mis-spelling, however you spell it!)

Edited by GWDS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're wrong because my book says you are.  Personally, I find that funny. 

I agree that that can be funny, but what real Objectivist ever said such a thing?

If you'll allow me to quote my scripture:

"Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it—that no substitute can do your thinking, as no pinch-hitter can live your life—that the vilest form of self-abasement and self-destruction is the subordination of your mind to the mind of another, the acceptance of an authority over your brain, the acceptance of his assertions over facts, his say-so as truth, his edicts as a middle-man between your consciousness and your existence."

--Ayn Rand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This, in particular, is quite dogmatic.  "We're right, all others are wrong" saying. 

I shall go find more.

But we ARE right and others ARE wrong.

Nice how you changed your claim. Let me remind everyone: You claimed that people here were saying we were right, not because our ideas are provably true, but BECAUSE A BOOK SAID SO.

I won't let you get away with switching your argument! Either provide an example that fits your claim or retract it and apologize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here from the Atheist thread where He basically says that it's so because Ayn Rand says it's so.  (Because, the "books are the facts of reality")

He said "in the context of this discussion." Meaning it's a discussion ABOUT what the books said.

NICE TRY, but you're still batting 0 for 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to respond to that, because I don't know enough of Ayn Rand (the writing anyways) to mock. Though, I'm sure people, more educated than I on the subject could find things funny.

Actually, I take that back. What I find hilarious about Objectivism, actually, some of the objectivist people, is that they sound EXACTLY like any other Religious dogma. I'm right, you're wrong that's the end of it. You're wrong because my book says you are. Personally, I find that funny.

It's sad too, because I personally believe in what she has to say. But, like anything, when taken to extremes, becomes out of control.

If one has only experienced dogmatic systems, then every system tends to look

like a dogmatic system to them, even if it isn't, because one is specifically

LOOKING for dogmatism, continually, within that system.

In fact, if dogmatism is not found, then anything that is even close (or superficially

resembles) dogmatism is identified as dogmatism.

A cow is a duck because they both breath air.

And how do you figure that making fun of oneself demeans your values? I think that's the most rediculous thing I've heard. There is a big difference between insulting something and making fun of a stereotype about it. I'm a drummer/percussionist. I know most of the all the drummer/musician jokes in the book. Many of them are quite funny. It has nothing to do with contradictions or demeaning of values, it merely pokes fun at the stereotype.
I'd like to see you make fun of yourself creating humor based on a valued quality

of yourself.

When you try, you come off simply stating something good about yourself. It's not

funny, per se, if it's IN REALITY true, BUT some people will laugh at it because

they may not know that this quality IS IN REALITY TRUE of you.

Stereotypes are typically a bag of "collected" negative characteristics of

some "class" of thing. Poking fun at a bunch of negative characteristics, usually in

an attempt to get an "existent" of that class to "stop being negative in that way

PLEASE!" is the essence of humor, and the essence of trying to change the world

for the better.

I play the bodhran. If you know what that is, you'll know the jokes thereby

associated, and the fact that most people "in the know" are amazed that I can

carry on routine metabolism of my food, much less string two words together.

Was that humor..? :(

Sometimes, if it's just not funny to you, ignore it. I thought it was funny, I thought others might see the humor in it, apparently I was wrong. But, personally, I think that in the same way that you can't take care of others until you can take care of yourself, I believe that you can't make fun of others until you can make fun of yourself.

This is a place where one expresses themself, and EXPECTS response from others

in response. Why would you want me to ignore you..? If you expest to be ignored,

you may well be in the wrong place.

I've seen enourmous humor on these forums (fori!?).

You just have to understand the basis on which "this particular" humor is

constructed.

What does "making fun of yourself" actually mean to you?

If it means "demeaning your own values as seen in others", in other words,

chiding other people who exhibit things that you value in yourself and others, then

you can perhaps understand how a "rational" person might consider that a bit odd.

Again, I stress that poking fun at and insulting are two VERY different things.

They are precisely the same thing IF they are aimed at something that

the "poker/insulter" actually values positively.

What is your difference, by the way, between the two?

You cannot be insulted by false claims about you. So insults are only taken AS

insults if they are true (unless you have a weak ego and can't respond effectively

to false claims), and are in that case better described as "possibly hurtfully formed

declarations of the truth".

"Poking fun" is a "mild" insult, or to apply the above definition, "a less possibly

hurtfully declaration of the truth".

What, other than quantity of "possible hurtfullness", is the difference

between "insult" and "poking fun at" again..?

-Iakeo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It has come to my attention that sarcasm is not self-evident. So if you didn't get it, calling Ayn Rand "scripture" was sarcasm.

Hae ae ae..!!

Great example..!!

That may be the most concise "Objectivist Joke" yet:

An objectivist said, "Scripture..."

..followed by uproarious laughter from the audience.

-Iakeo

Edited by Iakeo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But we ARE right and others ARE wrong.

Nice how you changed your claim. Let me remind everyone: You claimed that people here were saying we were right, not because our ideas are provably true, but BECAUSE A BOOK SAID SO.

I won't let you get away with switching your argument! Either provide an example that fits your claim or retract it and apologize.

Actually, if you read again, I made them two separate ideas. And at what point did I change my claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find funny things funny regardless of who/what the target is; if something is clever then it doesnt stop being clever just because it attacks something you happen to value. However theres a difference between simply finding something funny and spreading it - if something is mocking your values then it would be questionable (to say the least) if you went out of your way to promote it.

Although as someone else mentioned, this is a philosophy forum rather than one devoted to humour. I know I'd personally stop reading it if every thread started to get filled with lame attempts to be funny.

Edited by Hal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course people aren't going to be like,"I'm a good person, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :P

:(

that would just be silly. However, my last example still stands. There was no insult, no poking fun (in your definition of "mildly insulting"). Yet, I got a bad response back. Maybe because humor is subjective and everyone has a different sense of humor (i.e. dry humor, toilet humor, etc etc.).

The other example is when I refer to myself as a dumb drummer. I don't ACTUALLY believe that I'm a dumb drummer, I'm actually quite intelligent (especially FOR a drummer :lol: ), but I'm clearly (in my mind anyways) making fun of the stereotype that drummers are dumb, drooling creatures that bang things. (Which, obviously, we are not). I agree with Iakeo that the dogmatism is not within the philosophy, but within the person. But, like anything, how people represent it, is how others will see it.

Okay, you know what? I'm not interested in making enemies here, nor angering anybody. I apologize for such an upheaval of a trivial thing as a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course people aren't going to be like,"I'm a good person, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :P

:(

that would just be silly.  However, my last example still stands.  There was no insult, no poking fun (in your definition of "mildly insulting").  Yet, I got a bad response back.  Maybe because humor is subjective and everyone has a different sense of humor (i.e. dry humor, toilet humor, etc etc.). 

There are context issues - If you know the person telling the joke is hostile and deliberately intending to mock (contrary to a lot of apparent beliefs in this thread, the purpose of humour is not always mockery), you're unlikely to find it funny. I might find a racist joke amusing if I read it on the internet with no real context, or if a friend tells it to me in an ironic manner, but my reaction is obviously going to be different if it comes from someone I know is actually racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find funny things funny regardless of who/what the target is; if something is clever then it doesnt stop being clever just because it attacks something you happen to value. However theres a difference between simply finding something funny and spreading it - if something is mocking your values then it would be questionable (to say the least) if you went out of your way to promote it.

Although as someone else mentioned, this is a philosophy forum rather than one devoted to humour. I know I'd personally stop reading it if every thread started to get filled with lame attempts at humour.

You find "funny things funny" based on what "funny" means to you. Examine

what "funny/clever" means to you.

If something is clever/funny, then it is so BECAUSE it is a TRUTH that "points at

some failing" with the target of the humor.

No one VALUES errors, if they (the person) are rational.

So finding "a truth that points to some failing" in a value of yours "funny/clever"

either means that your value fails somehow, and should be reconsidered, or that

you are irrational in holding onto values that you know should not be valued.

-Iakeo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You find "funny things funny" based on what "funny" means to you. Examine

what "funny/clever" means to you.

If something is clever/funny, then it is so BECAUSE it is a TRUTH that "points at

some failing" with the target of the humor.

Not really, it can just be funny. Have you ever watched Seinfeld or Father Ted? A lot of the humour in those shows isnt really 'directed' at anything, its just clever. The target is fairly arbitrary in a lot of jokes anyway; you could replace the 'lawyer' in lawyer jokes with various other professions without altering the structure of the joke, just as you could replace the 'irish' in "dumb irish" jokes with blondes or whatever.

Edited by Hal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everything Deserves mockery, as there is no perfection.

Your poor capitalization would seem to be evidence of the latter claim, at least in your case.

You are here espousing a doctrine antithetical to Objectivism. The last time I looked that violates forum rules.

Styles2112, with how much of Objectivism do you agree? Answering will help set a context for your envious comment above.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...